I'm not doing it - But it was the only way to overthrown the ancién régime - Sometimes reformism is not the way to go - Just look at fascist States - Does anyone genuinely think that trusting the government to reform its power out of existence (or just limit it) is a good idea? What guarantees are there that it will happen?

(June 23, 2015 at 1:57 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I'm not doing it - But it was the only way to overthrown the ancién régime - Sometimes reformism is not the way to go - Just look at fascist States - Does anyone genuinely think that trusting the government to reform its power out of existence (or just limit it) is a good idea? What guarantees are there that it will happen?

I think there's a bit of a difference between acknowledging that Stalinesque states are bad and abandoning all government.  Seriously, does anybody understand what "nuance" is anymore?  

As for anarchism itself, there is one key question I've asked anarchists that I have never gotten a good answer for: If anarchism is such a great thing, why have there never been anarchistic societies that were good enough for others to emulate them?

(June 23, 2015 at 1:57 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I'm not doing it - But it was the only way to overthrown the ancién régime - Sometimes reformism is not the way to go - Just look at fascist States - Does anyone genuinely think that trusting the government to reform its power out of existence (or just limit it) is a good idea? What guarantees are there that it will happen?

Being a revolutionary and being an anarchist are two different things.  Wanting to overthrow a government does not entail wanting to have no government.  Most revolutionaries simply want a different government than what they have.

(June 23, 2015 at 2:10 pm)TaraJo Wrote: I think there's a bit of a difference between acknowledging that Stalinesque states are bad and abandoning all government.  Seriously, does anybody understand what "nuance" is anymore?  

As for anarchism itself, there is one key question I've asked anarchists that I have never gotten a good answer for: If anarchism is such a great thing, why have there never been anarchistic societies that were good enough for others to emulate them?

It is because anarchy is inherently unstable, and instantly there are struggles for power.  Just imagine there being no government, and what that would mean when your neighbor wants to take a loaf of bread from you.

The idea that everyone will get along and sing "Kumbaya" without a government is amazingly stupid. 

Anarchists are idiots.  They make Christians seem like rocket scientists.

(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.

Not really. I don't view fascism as childish and naive.

I was merely debating the revolution V. reformism arguments - I wasn't saying I endorse anarchy (I don't). Honestly, I don't feel comfortable debating anarchy and saying right away it is entirely stupid without reading the books first - I made that mistake many times and I've been defeated (and mocked) by people who know better than me.

One of the things that confuses me is that anarchists frequently say that laws can still exist without a government to prevent chaos - But my question is - If authority is a requirement of any law (otherwise no one needs to follow it), how can there be laws?

Pyrrho - I think that's a very simplistic counter-argument - If your State abolished the government, would your first reaction be stealing from the guy next door?

(June 23, 2015 at 3:29 pm)Dystopia Wrote: One of the things that confuses me is that anarchists frequently say that laws can still exist without a government to prevent chaos - But my question is - If authority is a requirement of any law (otherwise no one needs to follow it), how can there be laws?

There can't. That's why it's so fucking stupid.

For anarchy to 'work' it must assume 1 of 3 things:

1. that people don't interact with each other at all
2. that they are capable of solving their differences and problems all on their own (without any authority or governmental system overseeing it)
3. that they suddenly stop exhibiting human behaviour and magically get on with each other, all of the time.

Now it doesn't take a genius to work out that none of these things are going to happen. Ergo, anarchy, as a political system, is flagrantly naive in what it expects, and flat out stupid in terms of any kind of implementation.

Any notion of a society is incompatible with anarchy. Anyone who says otherwise isn't using the same definition of anarchy as what I am.

(June 23, 2015 at 3:29 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I was merely debating the revolution V. reformism arguments - I wasn't saying I endorse anarchy (I don't). Honestly, I don't feel comfortable debating anarchy and saying right away it is entirely stupid without reading the books first - I made that mistake many times and I've been defeated (and mocked) by people who know better than me.

One of the things that confuses me is that anarchists frequently say that laws can still exist without a government to prevent chaos - But my question is - If authority is a requirement of any law (otherwise no one needs to follow it), how can there be laws?

A law without a government backing it up is no more than a suggestion. They are just delusional idiots, imagining that people would follow laws without a government backing them up.  Hell, even with a government, people are often quite willing to break the law.  What do you think would happen if there were nothing enforcing the law?

The idea that we would all happily get along is so ludicrously idiotic that it staggers the imagination to suppose that anyone is stupid enough to believe it.

Of course, as has already been stated in this thread, many who call themselves "anarchists" are not really anarchists.  They just want to stay up past their bedtime.

(June 23, 2015 at 3:29 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Pyrrho - I think that's a very simplistic counter-argument - If your State abolished the government, would your first reaction be stealing from the guy next door?

You should read all of my posts in this thread together, rather than view the last one in isolation.  I don't want to repeat everything every time I put in a new post, as that would be tedious.  So I have not done that, but it is necessary to understand the word "anarchy" to understand my comments about it, and I explained that term in my first post in this thread, which is post 16.

Now, if there were no government, what I would do would depend greatly on whatever my situation was at the time.  If I had nothing to eat, and my neighbor had bread, do you suppose that it would be wise to assume that I will simply quietly starve to death in my home?  And whether I would or not, you can be sure that many others would not.

Really, if there were a plan to disband the government (which, fortunately, is only a ridiculous fantasy of deluded morons), I would be looking to get out of here before that happened.  Perhaps, I would move to Canada, though I would feel a whole lot safer further away from the mess that would ensue.  Unfortunately, with the nuclear weapons that are here, no place on earth could be far enough away to be safe from the aftermath of an absence of government here, as there would be no telling who would end up with our nuclear weapons, nor would one know what they would do with them.

(June 23, 2015 at 1:55 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Er...I wouldn't use the French Revolution as an example of a good application of liberalism...the years following the revolution were horrifying.

The years preceding it were horrifying for the common people.  That is why there was a revolution.  And however nasty it was, it was a step in the direction of the modern state of France, which is a vastly better country than it was under its oppressive monarchy.  The French today celebrate the overthrow of the monarchy.  And they are right to.

To use a trite old saying, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.  Or I could use another trite saying, desperate times call for desperate measures.

But yes, you are right, that some pretty nasty things happened in and immediately following the French revolution.  Revolutions commonly involve a good amount of nastiness, which is why they should be considered "last resort" sorts of efforts.  But they needed a change from their oppressive government, and heads needed to roll.  The rich elites treatment of the poor was asking for it, and they eventually got it.

Vive la France!

(June 23, 2015 at 4:11 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: A law without a government backing it up is no more than a suggestion. They are just delusional idiots, imagining that people would follow laws without a government backing them up.  Hell, even with a government, people are often quite willing to break the law.  What do you think would happen if there were nothing enforcing the law?

I would call them Utopists. One can always hope that human nature allows for peaceful interactions. Is it realistic? No. But a dreamer isn't automatically an idiot.