Anarchist idiots

[abaris]

The anarcho-capitalists don't think human nature will lead to peaceful interactions;

There is no such thing as anarcho capitalists. Only idiots, who don't even know what they're talking about. Yes, in this case it is idiots and not dreamers.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Is it just me or is there a strong immaturity streak in a lot of self described anarchists?

A lot of people who think they know more than they actually do.

They see the political beast of state and economic structures and reduce them down to parsimonious absurdity. Rather than get to grips with the complexities and nuances of a, say, a political state structure (as an example, a welfare systemand economic reforms/policies that fund it), they prefer to generalise the utopian elements of a political philosophy ignoring everything else.

"Guv'ment never did anything for anyone!" - Actually keeps me alive by putting my tax money into funding my diabetes care. So, checkmate I guess.

[Napoléon]

I agree that anarchowhateverism isn't a very well thought out system, however I think it's silly to expect good and proper behavior from someone who labels themselves as an anarchist.

I dunno, their 'system' kind of expects people to get along just fine in order for it to really work. Yet their own behaviour perfectly highlights why their own system would never work. It's a brilliant irony really.

[jesus_wept]

I used to know a few anarchists and they were basically ex-hippies, who wanted to be left alone and live their lives in peace and quiet. And were as far removed from the "anarcho capitalists" and bourgois rebel anarchists (out to stick two fingers up to mummy and daddy before embarking on a career as a diplomat) as you could imagine.

I can't even get my head round these so called anarcho capitalists tbh, at the risk of playing the no true anarchist card I wouldn't even call them anarchists, they're rampant capitalists and nothing more IMO.

[abaris]

I can't even get my head round these so called anarcho capitalists tbh, at the risk of playing the no true anarchist card I wouldn't even call them anarchists, they're rampant capitalists and nothing more IMO.

Yeah, they aren't. It's on the same lines as the new hippies, which is basically nothing else than a consumer movement with fancy cloths. Nothing to do with the original idea.

[Nope]

Perhaps someone can answer this for me, in an anarchist society how would the weak and vulnerable be protected? Maybe I am misunderstanding how anarchy would work but wouldn't the strongest just dominate the weaker members?

[abaris]

Perhaps someone can answer this for me, in an anarchist society how would the weak and vulnerable be protected? Maybe I am misunderstanding how anarchy would work but wouldn't the strongest just dominate the weaker members?

Just as with communism, they're not taking human nature into account. They were hoping for humans to behave without any rules, which is totally absurd, of course. And in their vast majority, they're anything but communist. That's a pretty good wiki page on the different forms of anarchism and what they wanted society or better, the absence of society, to look like.

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[9][10] While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

[Nope]

Perhaps someone can answer this for me, in an anarchist society how would the weak and vulnerable be protected? Maybe I am misunderstanding how anarchy would work but wouldn't the strongest just dominate the weaker members?

Just as with communism, they're not taking human nature into account. They were hoping for humans to behave without any rules, which is totally absurd, of course. And in their vast majority, they're anything but communist. That's a pretty good wiki page on the different forms of anarchism and what they wanted society or better, the absence of society, to look like.

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[9][10] While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Thank you

[Dystopia]

Just as with communism, they're not taking human nature into account. They were hoping for humans to behave without any rules, which is totally absurd, of course. And in their vast majority, they're anything but communist. That's a pretty good wiki page on the different forms of anarchism and what they wanted society or better, the absence of society, to look like.

This concept of human nature is bullshit. I've told people anarchy worked temporarily in Spain during the civil way. Any political system can work under the right circumstances - You just have to give people the right reasons to fight for something Btw, the reason people like Stalin and Lenin created their own socialist systems was to correct some parts of Marxism that, at the time, were not working.


I absolutely hate right-anarchists, far more than peaceful hippie lover ones - Some may even be lovely people - But they suck - Every regulation is oppression, it's ok for someone to starve to death, but propose giving the homeless welfare and they'll call it "inciting laziness" - Then tell them we should tax the rich and they'll freak out completely. When I'm debating those people I've noticed they refer to anyone who doesn't agree with them as "statists" so I make it a point to pretend to be a hardcore statist, even if I'm not.

Perhaps someone can answer this for me, in an anarchist society how would the weak and vulnerable be protected? Maybe I am misunderstanding how anarchy would work but wouldn't the strongest just dominate the weaker members?

While this point is good - It already happens in statist capitalist societies so I don't think it's an anarchy exclusive problem - Sometimes it's the police treating the weak poorly.

[jesus_wept]

Perhaps someone can answer this for me, in an anarchist society how would the weak and vulnerable be protected? Maybe I am misunderstanding how anarchy would work but wouldn't the strongest just dominate the weaker members?

We line those who oppress and exploit the weak and vulnerable against a wall, and shoot them.

I can't speak for everyone but this is what I'd do in an anarchist society.