A case for Anarchism

Ana the Ist · Dec 1, 2022

Hans Blaster said:
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).

There's a pretty famous bit of footage.

It's a guy at a pay phone at an airport I think. As he's there, a criminal of some sorts is being escorted past him by the police. He barely looks up at the spectacle despite news crews being present....he gives almost no indication of what he's about to do.

I remember him holding the cop back a step with one arm, while using the other to shoot the criminal in the head with a small pistol. The criminal had confessed to violently sexually abusing this man's son.....and apparently, whatever plea deal he received, was not satisfactory for the father. He makes no attempt to flee....he's arrested for premeditated murder on the spot.

He was found guilty, sentenced to time served. The judge reminded him it frowned upon vigilantism....

Hans Blaster said:
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".

I don't think your power of the vote means all that much anymore.

Ana the Ist · Dec 1, 2022

Landon Caeli said:
Wouldn't it force a sense of social responsibility upon people? Knowing that there was no 'big brother' intervening in anyone's life? Maybe people would see each other as fellow citizens, and an actual culture would develop with the absence of the political party's standing in our way preventing that from happening.

How can we say, since it's never been tried in the history of man on earth?

I think you fundamentally don't understand humanity.

Landon Caeli · Dec 1, 2022

Ana the Ist said:
I think you fundamentally don't understand humanity.

Maybe, maybe not.

Ana the Ist · Dec 1, 2022

Landon Caeli said:
Maybe, maybe not.

Right well....

If we were more inclined to help one another, then seek to help ourselves....wouldn't history look dramatically different?

Landon Caeli · Dec 1, 2022

Ana the Ist said:
Right well....

If we were more inclined to help one another, then seek to help ourselves....wouldn't history look dramatically different?

Yes, history is one thing... But won't we evolve over time? We're not auctioning off slaves anymore after all. How far can we go..?

chevyontheriver · Dec 2, 2022

Landon Caeli said:
Yes, history is one thing... But won't we evolve over time? We're not auctioning off slaves anymore after all. How far can we go..?

There were public slave auctions in Iraq a few short years ago. And there is underground human trafficking worldwide today. Including in the USA. Happens at truck stops and all over.

Landon Caeli · Dec 2, 2022

chevyontheriver said:
There were public slave auctions in Iraq a few short years ago. And there is underground human trafficking worldwide today. Including in the USA. Happens at truck stops and all over.

Chevy, how do we as Catholics reconcile our own Church teachings on the Human Conscience, when considering that humanity has flawed tendencies?

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 6

No offense, but to me, your post comes off as anecdotal and not well considered.

Ana the Ist said:
There's a pretty famous bit of footage.

It's a guy at a pay phone at an airport I think. As he's there, a criminal of some sorts is being escorted past him by the police. He barely looks up at the spectacle despite news crews being present....he gives almost no indication of what he's about to do.

I remember him holding the cop back a step with one arm, while using the other to shoot the criminal in the head with a small pistol. The criminal had confessed to violently sexually abusing this man's son.....and apparently, whatever plea deal he received, was not satisfactory for the father. He makes no attempt to flee....he's arrested for premeditated murder on the spot.

He was found guilty, sentenced to time served. The judge reminded him it frowned upon vigilantism....

This too, seems anecdotal. Shouldn't we at least entertain the idea, at least for a moment, to get a more well-rounded perspective?

chevyontheriver · Dec 2, 2022

Landon Caeli said:
Chevy, how do we as Catholics reconcile our own Church teachings on the Human Conscience, when considering that humanity has flawed tendencies?

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 6

No offense, but to me, your post comes off as anecdotal and not well considered.

Oh, I wish. Have you ever stopped at a highway rest stop and read the notices? They will almost invariably include a notice about sex slavery and to keep your eyes open for someone who seems captive. It's a happening thing. Open slave trading happened under ISIS in Iraq. Not an anecdote.

Landon Caeli · Dec 2, 2022

chevyontheriver said:
Oh, I wish. Have you ever stopped at a highway rest stop and read the notices? They will almost invariably include a notice about sex slavery and to keep your eyes open for someone who seems captive. It's a happening thing. Open slave trading happened under ISIS in Iraq. Not an anecdote.

While I acknowledge that these things do occur, I think there is room within mankind for improvement - if not, Jesus would have never said: "sin no more". Scientifically, we also see the age old process of refinement of the species for their greater good.

...If the possibility exists within both these schools of thought, then it's not being naive to consider it. But rather, shrewd to outright reject it. Not speaking of anyone here, BTW, of being shrewd, but I think it's easy to do, because this train of thought is rarely considered, and seems "different".

chevyontheriver · Dec 2, 2022

Landon Caeli said:
While I acknowledge that these things do occur, I think there is room within mankind for improvement - if not, Jesus would have never said: "sin no more". Scientifically, we also see the age old process of refinement of the species for their greater good.

...If the possibility exists within both these schools of thought, then it's not being naive to consider it. But rather, shrewd to outright reject it. Not speaking of anyone here, BTW, of being shrewd, but I think it's easy to do, because this train of thought is rarely considered, and seems "different".

There is room for improvement. Lots of room for improvement. But I don't think we are so evolved as a species over a few hundred years ago. The 20th century was the bloodiest century ever. EVER. The 21st century is not off to a good start.

Ana the Ist · Dec 2, 2022

Landon Caeli said:
Yes, history is one thing... But won't we evolve over time? We're not auctioning off slaves anymore after all. How far can we go..?

Our evolution seems to be taking a few unexpected directions.

Natural selection isn't making the choices anymore....or perhaps not as much.

Ana the Ist · Dec 2, 2022

Landon Caeli said:
This too, seems anecdotal. Shouldn't we at least entertain the idea, at least for a moment, to get a more well-rounded perspective?

It is anecdotal...and really, it's meant to address the concept of a "monopoly on violence"....or the idea that as a type of power, violence can be monopolized or concentrated only in the hands of a few.

That's not really true. Anyone capable of using violence effectively has access to it as a means of power. I don't see it as something that could possibly be monopolized. It's like saying sexual attraction is monopolized by....whomever you find irresistibly sexy. Just because you are unable to resist a type of power doesn't hold that true for everyone.

I don't really argue with Anarchists anymore Landon. I'm pretty familiar with Proudhon but the rest are....meh....maybe names I've heard? I like the radical egoism of Max Stirner....it's almost a philosophical basis for sociopaths and psychopaths....people who imagine the best world is one where they are no longer judged by others for their disregard and lack of interest in anyone but themselves.

I've known maybe 3 reasonably well read and self professed Anarchists. They're not dumb...but I don't think of them as very smart either.

They have come to....imo....emotionally project blame and fault onto the hierarchy of the government. It's a negative political vision. It's very much a "without this or these people in the way"....a better world will simply exist.

It's a lot like communism in this way....but without the appeal of collective identity and diminished responsibility. It's hard to create a coalition of Anarchists. If they don't feel like they need any sort of authority of government over them....they probably don't see much appeal in a group of Anarchists.

It's this sort of emotional appeal to a very specific sort of person that anarchy has.....that makes it inexorable. You won't be convinced of some other explanations because the answer of blaming government is so obvious....and easy.

That's how I always saw the position...emotionally driven, and frankly your attempt to have the "experts" explain it makes me more convinced.

The only unifying theme behind each of their explanations was an intense or deep seeded distrust of government and authority.

Landon Caeli · Dec 2, 2022

Ana the Ist said:
It is anecdotal...and really, it's meant to address the concept of a "monopoly on violence"....or the idea that as a type of power, violence can be monopolized or concentrated only in the hands of a few.

That's not really true. Anyone capable of using violence effectively has access to it as a means of power. I don't see it as something that could possibly be monopolized. It's like saying sexual attraction is monopolized by....whomever you find irresistibly sexy. Just because you are unable to resist a type of power doesn't hold that true for everyone.

I don't really argue with Anarchists anymore Landon. I'm pretty familiar with Proudhon but the rest are....meh....maybe names I've heard? I like the radical egoism of Max Stirner....it's almost a philosophical basis for sociopaths and psychopaths....people who imagine the best world is one where they are no longer judged by others for their disregard and lack of interest in anyone but themselves.

I've known maybe 3 reasonably well read and self professed Anarchists. They're not dumb...but I don't think of them as very smart either.

They have come to....imo....emotionally project blame and fault onto the hierarchy of the government. It's a negative political vision. It's very much a "without this or these people in the way"....a better world will simply exist.

It's a lot like communism in this way....but without the appeal of collective identity and diminished responsibility. It's hard to create a coalition of Anarchists. If they don't feel like they need any sort of authority of government over them....they probably don't see much appeal in a group of Anarchists.

It's this sort of emotional appeal to a very specific sort of person that anarchy has.....that makes it inexorable. You won't be convinced of some other explanations because the answer of blaming government is so obvious....and easy.

That's how I always saw the position...emotionally driven, and frankly your attempt to have the "experts" explain it makes me more convinced.

The only unifying theme behind each of their explanations was an intense or deep seeded distrust of government and authority.

Well I can see one of your points as true, in that many anarchists are not the type of people I would choose to identify with, and as such, wouldn't consider myself as one. But maybe that's just a stereotype, and we're both guilty of placing bias in front of our own willingness to be more open minded.

...Anarchism may not be right for today. But as a concept, I think there's more to it than meets the eye. Even if I were just to discover the truth, on why there must always be a higher power, and why rival powers always fight to be the highest power, I would be satisfied with having learned something new.

gaara4158 · Dec 4, 2022

I’ve been intrigued by the concept of anarcho-syndicalism ever since tuning in to online streamer Vaush’s channel in 2019, during the peak of Bernie Sanders’ viability as a presidential candidate. My concern is how human rights (such as healthcare, personal property, etc.) would be guaranteed without the use of coercion by a state. Market forces don’t seem to do a good job at this even under state-enforced capitalism, and I’m not sure it’s excessive regulation by the state getting in the way of that. Admittedly, I haven’t read deeply into the theory so there may well be a good answer, but perhaps OP as someone who’s been studying anarchism can speak to this.

Daniel Peres · Dec 6, 2022

Landon Caeli said:
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?

What are Christian laws in the political sense.?

Most people are unaware of the fact that some of the original 13 colonies/states had official religions. For example, Massachusetts was Puritan. As a result, other Christians were treated horribly under their laws.

Another example is Maryland. Although it was originally Catholic, it became Protestant. They had a law that for any Catholic who converted to Protestantism, their parents’ property would be confiscated and given to them.

chevyontheriver · Dec 6, 2022

Daniel Peres said:
What are Christian laws in the political sense.?

Most people are unaware of the fact that some of the original 13 colonies/states had official religions. For example, Massachusetts was Puritan. As a result, other Christians were treated horribly under their laws.

Another example is Maryland. Although it was originally Catholic, it became Protestant. They had a law that for any Catholic who converted to Protestantism, their parents’ property would be confiscated and given to them.

In the case of Catholic Maryland, the Catholic majority were tolerant of other people's religions as opposed to so many other colonies that allowed no dissent from their particular Protestant orthodoxies. So Maryland became a magnate for certain kinds of Protestants to flee to. They became the majority. They then went full bore anti-Catholic when they had the power to do so. Invited in as refugees from religious oppression, they became the oppressors.

Toleration, particularly religious toleration, was tried in Maryland. And it flopped. Anarchy requires absolute tolerance for long term survival. But we aren't a tolerant people as Americans. So anarchy leads to totalitarianism. Ordered liberty is a frail thing. It's under threat right now in this country from the woke mobs. We have had religious liberty in this country, as maintained by law and custom. But customs have changed, and with customs the lawmakers have changed. Now we are supposed to be tolerant of everything except old fashioned religious liberty. We need to punish old fashioned mores and doctrines out of existence. It will happen soon enough. The stage is set.

Ken-1122 · Jan 3, 2023

Landon Caeli said:
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.

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

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.

A little background information:
A Brief Explanation of Anarchism | Issue 128 | Philosophy Now

I think anarchy would be impossible with mankind because humans have a natural tendency to form gangs, and if there were anarchy, various gangs would fight for power and the most powerful gang would enact their rule of law; thus no more anarchy.

A case for Anarchism

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

God is perfect - Nothing is an accident

Aggressively serene!

God is perfect - Nothing is an accident

Well-Known Member

God is perfect - Nothing is an accident

Well-Known Member

God is perfect - Nothing is an accident

Well-Known Member

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

God is perfect - Nothing is an accident

Gen Alpha Dad

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads