(June 23, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Napoléon Wrote: Anarchism has always struck me as a rather naive and childish world view.

I don't disagree but I think people view any ideology that doesn't fit their idea of right as childish and naive.

(June 23, 2015 at 1:20 pm)Dystopia Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Napoléon Wrote: Anarchism has always struck me as a rather naive and childish world view.

I don't disagree but I think people view any ideology that doesn't fit their idea of right as childish and naive.

In this case, I think it actually is childish and naive.  Every discussion I've had with this flavor of anarchist always seems to go the same way:  They point out grievances with the government (and they're usually legitimate grievances).  However, instead of attempting to reform the government to account for those problems, they recommend abandoning the government altogether.  If that isn't throwing the baby out with the bath water, I don't know what is.

(June 23, 2015 at 1:27 pm)TaraJo Wrote: However, instead of attempting to reform the government to account for those problems, they recommend abandoning the government altogether.  If that isn't throwing the baby out with the bath water, I don't know what is.

It is right up there with holding one's breath until one turns blue.

BTW, another reason why FB sucks balls.

The anarchists of old would rotate in their graves over someone calling the belief in laissez faire capitalism anarchism. That guy is mistaking libertarianism for anarchism. Hardly surprising, given the usual facebook community.

(June 23, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Napoléon Wrote: Anarchism has always struck me as a rather naive and childish world view.

Maybe that is because it is.  To make sure we do not get lost in something else:

Quote:anarchy
noun
[MASS NOUN]
1A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognitionof authority or other controlling systems:he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy

2Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all


The British philosopher Thomas Hobbes called this a "state of nature," a theoretical situation in which:

"the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm


Of course, it is an imaginary state of existence, as there will always be those who will exercise their power in a void.  What always happens in the absence of government is various peoples grouping together, with different groups opposed to each other, in a brutal struggle to obtain power (i.e., to make their own government).

Anyone who advocates for such a state is an idiot.  All anarchists are fucking stupid morons.  And yes, there are silly, naive children who imagine that they don't have to go to bed on time or do anything their parents say, which is appealing to them.  But in the absence of a social order, there is chaos and extreme violence, until there is a new social order in place.

No one of sense is an anarchist.  And no one of sense takes the ravings of anarchists seriously.


And as you, TaraJo, have noticed, self-described "anarchists" are often hypocritical assholes who really want to be dictating laws themselves.  And, TaraJo, all anarchists are idiots.  Just think carefully about what "anarchy" really is, and you will see that only an idiot would advocate such a thing.

(June 23, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Napoléon Wrote: Anarchism has always struck me as a rather naive and childish world view.

What is really needed is for me to rule you all as your benevolent dictator.

(June 23, 2015 at 1:40 pm)abaris Wrote: The anarchists of old would rotate in their graves over someone calling the belief in laissez faire capitalism anarchism. That guy is mistaking libertarianism for anarchism. Hardly surprising, given the usual facebook community.

Yes.  Those are completely different things.  If the opening post is accurately representing things, that guy literally does not know what he is saying.  Just a stupid moron, nothing more.

(June 23, 2015 at 1:27 pm)TaraJo Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 1:20 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I don't disagree but I think people view any ideology that doesn't fit their idea of right as childish and naive.

In this case, I think it actually is childish and naive.  Every discussion I've had with this flavor of anarchist always seems to go the same way:  They point out grievances with the government (and they're usually legitimate grievances).  However, instead of attempting to reform the government to account for those problems, they recommend abandoning the government altogether.  If that isn't throwing the baby out with the bath water, I don't know what is.

The eternal debate between reform and revolution will never end - Sometimes a revolution is just a better alternative than mere reformism. The French overthrew the government and planted a new regime (liberalism); the Germans used reform - Reform is good because it provides stability, continuance and preserves some valuable traditions, but when an institution is so corrupt the only choice may be to overthrow it with violence (if necessary) - I'm not saying this is the case for the State, but it seems to be what anarchists think. I don't spend a lot of time on social networks so I may be a little oblivious to what people think/argue.There is a difference between arguing with an anarchist who simply thinks it's cool to be rebellious and someone who has actually read literature and has a deep understanding of politics and a decent proposal for the future. There are cases in history when anarchy worked for some time - I'm thinking Catalunha in Spain.

Er...I wouldn't use the French Revolution as an example of a good application of liberalism...the years following the revolution were horrifying.