Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

HelioPrime · Mar 16, 2008, 04:41 pm

Quote:

Quote by: grandpa

As for how to convince people to accept anarchism, I'd suggest using logic.

Grandpa h.

Like libertarians your going on the platform that anyone with enough clear thinking logic will reject state power or national governments.

Except face the reality. So many people have built up a life dependent on government. Lifestyles would drastically change if the government and authorities were removed from the picture.

In the end your just the naysayer on a soapbox speaking to a public who thinks your just a loon. I don't mean it as an insult but it's the truth. Few people really desire to live in a world where they are dependent of themselves for everything in life.

grandpa · Mar 16, 2008, 05:30 pm

Quote:

Quote by: HelioPrime

Like libertarians your going on the platform that anyone with
enough clear thinking logic will reject state power or national
governments.
Except face the reality.

First of all, anarchist ARE libertarians. The first known use of that word was by an anarcho-communist. But right-wing "libertarians" sort of stole the term in America (considerably in line with their collective worldview, coincidentally).

You are basically correct, though. It seems few if any are going
to get with the real picture here.

But I must address your argument that anarchism must entail everyone doing things independently. That's not true. To assume a successful social species would involve no social interaction is perhaps the height of nonsense. Anarchism is actually often regarded as the anti-state form of socialism, or anti-state communism. Anarchists tend to speak favorably of solidarity between ordinary people and urge cooperation between them.

Grandpa h.

ren · Mar 17, 2008, 01:25 am

Interesting question: is authority a bad thing?

Why "bad" and what range of meanings of bad are meant? is my first response to the question..

I'm not sure if I understand, after reading all the responses on this thread, what everyone believes "authority" to be. So it's difficult to answer my first response at this point. There's quite a range of implications of meaning in some of the posts. So I would have to ask the question, at this point, what is authority? Where does authority occur and why?

One of the ways I view society is functionally, in that it's a collective, ongoing problem solving process, and it requires some degree of organization to achieve solutions. That's a very general statement. From there you can begin to look at specifics, like the problems being solved, and the organizational strategies employed to solve those problems.

When societies become complex, have mutliple layers of specialization with concurrent role assignments, and those are organized in a way to accomplish tasks, there are different strategies for organizing the group to accomplish those tasks.

For example, in a participatory democratic based collective, with a productive purpose, within a larger, complex society, the decision making can be completely decentralized and each decision may require a group debate to assure agreement. This can be a very messy process in which little actually gets accomplished, if the group is large and the tasks are complex, like building automobiles from scratch. It can work fine in a small group, say three guys that do remodeling services and each are fully competent in all the tasks involved. I don't know of a single for profit corporation of any size that has even attempted to experiment with a participatory, democratic organizational strategy. Compare that strategy to, for instance, a military. If a military was organized as a participatory democracy where everyone votes on battle plans and how they will be employed, how would it fare when it comes up against a highly organized, chain of command, well trained fighting unit? I don't think that takes a lot of effort to imagine.

I'm just suggesting that type of analysis as a way of looking at organizational principles in order to understand what authority is about, so that some sort of way of making sense of the lead question can be come to, through an evaluative process.

Piscean · Apr 1, 2008, 07:50 pm

Inspired by the threads on consumption and control, there exists a feeling expressed by several members here that government control, and power to a few individuals in always a bad thing.

So why is that? Is there a moral or legal law or code somewhere that implies that all humans should be equal and have equal power and access?

Why do people feel that a structured society with some people having more power than others is always a bad thing.

The simple version of my answer to this is that man is inherently corrupt, no man is fit to lead (nor woman) With every fiber of my being I know that I should have the freedom to make my own mistakes and so should you wheather you are too scared to face that or not!!

Milton Bradley · Apr 1, 2008, 08:07 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Piscean

Why do people feel that a structured society with some people having more power than others is always a bad thing.

Many of us are not, in fact, arguing that.

We just contend that other, more restrictive societies exist, and that if that can't cope with all of the issues of living in a free society, they should seek out the type of society they desire, rather than messing up the one free society that exists by insisting that we change our laws to accomodate them.

another day · Apr 1, 2008, 11:23 pm

Quote:

Quote by: HelioPrime

In the end your just the naysayer on a soapbox speaking to a public who thinks your just a loon. I don't mean it as an insult but it's the truth. Few people really desire to live in a world where they are dependent of themselves for everything in life.

Appealing to popular opinion is a fallacy, dontchaknow.

Of course most people believe a huge and all emcompassing government is necessary. They have long lived their lives alongside such a beast, and most people are not able to grasp that which they are not accustomed to.

Piscean · Apr 1, 2008, 11:26 pm

Appealing to popular opinion is a fallacy, dontchaknow.

Of course most people believe a huge and all emcompassing government is necessary. They have long lived their lives alongside such a beast, and most people are not able to grasp that which they are not accustomed to.

AMEN

grandpa · Apr 2, 2008, 12:02 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Piscean

Appealing to popular opinion is a fallacy, dontchaknow.
Of course most people believe a huge and all emcompassing
government is necessary.

Many classical theorists not only believed in "the ultimate truth," but that this truth was contained in the state. In this mentality, it's as if people only exist due to the government's right to propose
them, enact them and defend them. It's proven to be a dangerous assumption.

Grandpa h.

suijurisfreeman · Apr 4, 2008, 11:54 am

"No man can be put under the political control of another without his own consent." Henry David Thoreau

The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals; it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good." U.S. Esparza-Mendoza, 265 F. Supp. 2d 1254 5/29/2003

State v. Brosseau, 124 N.H. 184, 470 A 2d 869 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire) 12/1/83, p. 8 "Part I, Article 1 provides that our government is derived from the people and is founded on their consent. N.H. Constitution part I, Art. 1, Art. 3 makes it clear that the government originates in a social compact running between the State and the people whose end is the protection of man's natural rights. Id. at Art. 3.

In joining a just society, we surrender the control over certain of our rights to its government for the greater good of the whole. That surrender is valid only so long as there is a quid pro quo, with the society providing an equivalent larger good for its exaction from the people. If the individual receives an equivalent for the right of control he has parted with, the surrender of that right is valid; if he receives no equivalent, the surrender is void, and the supreme power of the State as it respects him is an usurper.

suijurisfreeman · Apr 4, 2008, 12:24 pm

The Essentail Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, p. 153. It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of freedom to say that government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, ther necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with. The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

State v. Curlep-Egan, 910 A 2d 200 (Supreme Court of Vermont) 9/1/1906, p. 4. Police power has long been understood to encompass the general power of the legislative branch to enact laws for the common good of all people. See State v. Morse, 84 Vt. 387, 393, 80 A. 189, 191.
Police power is the practical manifestation of each individual's agreement, as part of the social compact, to subject his rights to the common good when a conflict arises.

Sejita · Apr 5, 2008, 12:55 pm

Power in the hands of the few, like an oligarchy or an autocracy, yeah that's bad. But to have a society where everyone is "equal" would fail epically. You can't have it. There will ALWAYS have to be someone who will need to have just a degree more of power to do something. Hell, if you live in a commune, and there's only one electrician, technically, he weild power, as if he doesn't want to fix the electricity, it doesn't get done. Power is a natural thing, and I think is necessary for a society to flourish.

grandpa · Apr 5, 2008, 01:38 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Sejita

Power in the hands of the few, like an oligarchy
or an autocracy, yeah that's bad.
But to have a society where everyone is "equal" would
fail epically.

That depends on what you mean by "equality." If you mean "equality" determined by the power of the omnipotent state, then forget about it. I'll reject that rather quickly. But if you mean equality under which no person or groups holds elite status and power over others, then I'll be much quicker to agree. There is no guarantee such a society would "fail epically," though many through the ages have argued it would.

Grandpa h.

Piscean · Apr 5, 2008, 01:41 pm

Quote:

Power in the hands of the few, like an oligarchy or an autocracy, yeah that's bad. But to have a society where everyone is "equal" would fail epically. You can't have it. There will ALWAYS have to be someone who will need to have just a degree more of power to do something. Hell, if you live in a commune, and there's only one electrician, technically, he weild power, as if he doesn't want to fix the electricity, it doesn't get done. Power is a natural thing, and I think is necessary for a society to flourish.

And you believe this why? Because they said so in school?

grandpa · Apr 5, 2008, 01:44 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Piscean

Because they said so in school?

And if so, why might they say that?

Grandpa h.

Sejita · Apr 5, 2008, 01:46 pm

No, I believe this through logic. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have every single person on this planet equal. Some can do things others can't, and that right there is a form of power. If you were to label everyone as equal in a society, it would be living a dream. Because everyone is not equal. Even in socieities where apparently everyone IS equal, it ends up degenerating into a dictatorship. One needs to look no further than basically any example of communism to see that. There must always be people above to obey, and people below to command.

grandpa · Apr 5, 2008, 02:01 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Sejita

No, I believe this through logic.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to have every single person on this
planet equal.

But here you make a classical mistake. There are basic distictions between equality of ability and equality of opportunity, many of which can be addressed merely by educational means and, of course, increased access to resources and social participation. As Noam Chomsky said, "life among clones would not be worth living, and a sane person will only rejoice that others have abilities that they do not share."
[Noam Chomsky, Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative Futures, p. 782]

Again, it also pays to separate equality into different branches. There are authoritarian definitions which, in my view are false, and then there are anti-authoritarian ideas. For example, an extremist Muslim may say, "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there
prevail justice and faith in God" -- a statement which clearly intends some variety of equality, though an awful kind that has been "productive" only in negative ways. Then there is another kind of "self-managed' equality, which has "people working in face-to-face relations with their fellows in order to bring the uniqueness of their own perspective to the business of solving common problems and achieving common goals." [George Benello, From the Ground Up, p. 160]

Grandpa h.

Sejita · Apr 5, 2008, 02:17 pm

But again, that can never work. Humans are flawed, and inherently greedy. It is the way we are, and chimpanzees (which differ only in 3% of the DNA) are the same way. They fight for territory, rescources, and mates. You cannot have equality, in it's purest form. Authority is necessary, on the grounds that it is needed to progress an society. Everyone has different ideas, ideals, goals, and thoughts. So if the power lies in everyone, there isn't a set direction. This is way there must be a balance struck between having absolute power, where one person does what he or she wants, and that's the way the state progresses, and total equality, where everyone's ideas clash until there is a deadlock of societal advancement. We call this meeting place between the two "democracy" where I come from.

grandpa · Apr 5, 2008, 03:30 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Sejita

But again, that can never work.
Humans are flawed, and inherently greedy.

If humans are inherently greedy -- which seems accurate in many circumstances -- it's all the more reason to not give much power to any one person or group.

Plus, much could be done to illustrate how different humans and chimps, or humans and dogs are. Humans can be much more destructive, yet more intelligent. That is why challenging authority is all the more practical. It's not "impossible" to undermine authority, even on a large scale. In fact, it's proven necessary throughout human history for reasons I've already stated.

Grandpa h.

Sejita · Apr 5, 2008, 09:57 pm

But we don't arbitrarily give power to a "group". All fragments (for the most part) are represented in a truly democratic society.

Piscean · Apr 5, 2008, 10:10 pm

I understand that in small social group natural leaders would always arise and a pecking order would be workoed out but any group of people controlling the masses they haven't even met is just wrong. I don't consider Goerge Bush Jr. or any of the cronies that run the govt. to b supirior to me so why do they get to controll me? If you dropprd all of them and myself on an uninhabited island I'd survive just fine and I doubt most of them would (especially if they started trying to order me around) I might tolerate their presanse if they didn't try to dominate me and if they didnt get in the way of my survival.

Mar 17, 2008, 01:25 am	#23 (permalink) (top)
ren Molten Ash Location: Willapa Watershed Posts: 25	Interesting question: is authority a bad thing? Why "bad" and what range of meanings of bad are meant? is my first response to the question.. I'm not sure if I understand, after reading all the responses on this thread, what everyone believes "authority" to be. So it's difficult to answer my first response at this point. There's quite a range of implications of meaning in some of the posts. So I would have to ask the question, at this point, what is authority? Where does authority occur and why? One of the ways I view society is functionally, in that it's a collective, ongoing problem solving process, and it requires some degree of organization to achieve solutions. That's a very general statement. From there you can begin to look at specifics, like the problems being solved, and the organizational strategies employed to solve those problems. When societies become complex, have mutliple layers of specialization with concurrent role assignments, and those are organized in a way to accomplish tasks, there are different strategies for organizing the group to accomplish those tasks. For example, in a participatory democratic based collective, with a productive purpose, within a larger, complex society, the decision making can be completely decentralized and each decision may require a group debate to assure agreement. This can be a very messy process in which little actually gets accomplished, if the group is large and the tasks are complex, like building automobiles from scratch. It can work fine in a small group, say three guys that do remodeling services and each are fully competent in all the tasks involved. I don't know of a single for profit corporation of any size that has even attempted to experiment with a participatory, democratic organizational strategy. Compare that strategy to, for instance, a military. If a military was organized as a participatory democracy where everyone votes on battle plans and how they will be employed, how would it fare when it comes up against a highly organized, chain of command, well trained fighting unit? I don't think that takes a lot of effort to imagine. I'm just suggesting that type of analysis as a way of looking at organizational principles in order to understand what authority is about, so that some sort of way of making sense of the lead question can be come to, through an evaluative process. I would pillow myself on the stream, for I'd like to cleanse my ears - Sun Chu (218-293) Chinese recluse

Apr 4, 2008, 11:54 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
suijurisfreeman Molten Ash Posts: 85	"No man can be put under the political control of another without his own consent." Henry David Thoreau The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals; it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good." U.S. Esparza-Mendoza, 265 F. Supp. 2d 1254 5/29/2003 State v. Brosseau, 124 N.H. 184, 470 A 2d 869 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire) 12/1/83, p. 8 "Part I, Article 1 provides that our government is derived from the people and is founded on their consent. N.H. Constitution part I, Art. 1, Art. 3 makes it clear that the government originates in a social compact running between the State and the people whose end is the protection of man's natural rights. Id. at Art. 3. In joining a just society, we surrender the control over certain of our rights to its government for the greater good of the whole. That surrender is valid only so long as there is a quid pro quo, with the society providing an equivalent larger good for its exaction from the people. If the individual receives an equivalent for the right of control he has parted with, the surrender of that right is valid; if he receives no equivalent, the surrender is void, and the supreme power of the State as it respects him is an usurper. I am a free Human Being and I have the right to ignore the State. I know my rights, I declare my rights, I exercise my rights and I damn well will defend my rights! Freedom is contagious, knowledge is the source of infection. Infect knowledge! Long live individualist-anarchism!

Apr 4, 2008, 12:24 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
suijurisfreeman Molten Ash Posts: 85	The Essentail Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, p. 153. It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of freedom to say that government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, ther necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with. The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist. State v. Curlep-Egan, 910 A 2d 200 (Supreme Court of Vermont) 9/1/1906, p. 4. Police power has long been understood to encompass the general power of the legislative branch to enact laws for the common good of all people. See State v. Morse, 84 Vt. 387, 393, 80 A. 189, 191. Police power is the practical manifestation of each individual's agreement, as part of the social compact, to subject his rights to the common good when a conflict arises. I am a free Human Being and I have the right to ignore the State. I know my rights, I declare my rights, I exercise my rights and I damn well will defend my rights! Freedom is contagious, knowledge is the source of infection. Infect knowledge! Long live individualist-anarchism!

Apr 5, 2008, 12:55 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
Sejita Dazed and confused Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 25	Power in the hands of the few, like an oligarchy or an autocracy, yeah that's bad. But to have a society where everyone is "equal" would fail epically. You can't have it. There will ALWAYS have to be someone who will need to have just a degree more of power to do something. Hell, if you live in a commune, and there's only one electrician, technically, he weild power, as if he doesn't want to fix the electricity, it doesn't get done. Power is a natural thing, and I think is necessary for a society to flourish. "Always remember to crush the infamy" - Voltaire

Apr 5, 2008, 01:46 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
Sejita Dazed and confused Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 25	No, I believe this through logic. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have every single person on this planet equal. Some can do things others can't, and that right there is a form of power. If you were to label everyone as equal in a society, it would be living a dream. Because everyone is not equal. Even in socieities where apparently everyone IS equal, it ends up degenerating into a dictatorship. One needs to look no further than basically any example of communism to see that. There must always be people above to obey, and people below to command. "Always remember to crush the infamy" - Voltaire

Apr 1, 2008, 07:50 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
Piscean Igneous Magma Posts: 279	Inspired by the threads on consumption and control, there exists a feeling expressed by several members here that government control, and power to a few individuals in always a bad thing. So why is that? Is there a moral or legal law or code somewhere that implies that all humans should be equal and have equal power and access? Why do people feel that a structured society with some people having more power than others is always a bad thing. The simple version of my answer to this is that man is inherently corrupt, no man is fit to lead (nor woman) With every fiber of my being I know that I should have the freedom to make my own mistakes and so should you wheather you are too scared to face that or not!!

Apr 1, 2008, 11:26 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
Piscean Igneous Magma Posts: 279	Appealing to popular opinion is a fallacy, dontchaknow. Of course most people believe a huge and all emcompassing government is necessary. They have long lived their lives alongside such a beast, and most people are not able to grasp that which they are not accustomed to. AMEN

Apr 5, 2008, 02:17 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
Sejita Dazed and confused Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 25	But again, that can never work. Humans are flawed, and inherently greedy. It is the way we are, and chimpanzees (which differ only in 3% of the DNA) are the same way. They fight for territory, rescources, and mates. You cannot have equality, in it's purest form. Authority is necessary, on the grounds that it is needed to progress an society. Everyone has different ideas, ideals, goals, and thoughts. So if the power lies in everyone, there isn't a set direction. This is way there must be a balance struck between having absolute power, where one person does what he or she wants, and that's the way the state progresses, and total equality, where everyone's ideas clash until there is a deadlock of societal advancement. We call this meeting place between the two "democracy" where I come from. "Always remember to crush the infamy" - Voltaire

Apr 5, 2008, 09:57 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
Sejita Dazed and confused Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 25	But we don't arbitrarily give power to a "group". All fragments (for the most part) are represented in a truly democratic society. "Always remember to crush the infamy" - Voltaire

Apr 5, 2008, 10:10 pm	#40 (permalink) (top)
Piscean Igneous Magma Posts: 279	I understand that in small social group natural leaders would always arise and a pecking order would be workoed out but any group of people controlling the masses they haven't even met is just wrong. I don't consider Goerge Bush Jr. or any of the cronies that run the govt. to b supirior to me so why do they get to controll me? If you dropprd all of them and myself on an uninhabited island I'd survive just fine and I doubt most of them would (especially if they started trying to order me around) I might tolerate their presanse if they didn't try to dominate me and if they didnt get in the way of my survival.