Jump to content

Anarchism Anyone?


chrisjones
 Share

Recommended Posts

I should make mention of "preference deals" - where candidates and parties make deals about where to put each other on their "how to vote" handouts in order to gain some advantage with those preferences, in case they can't get enough first preference votes. Or to prevent some other candidates benefiting. It is an unedifying aspect.

Whilst I personally decide the order of my preferences a lot of people simply follow what their preferred party or candidate suggests. Often it can be in the form of agreeing to put some an independent candidate who shares some values with them ahead of the "no.1 enemy" major party. Sometimes it is a show of putting some much disliked party or candidate last.

Our politicians are capable of all the same bad behaviors as other places, if they think they can gain advantage and get away with it. If they could disenfranchise blocs of voters inclined against them they would. The checks and balances that have been introduced along the way do seem to prevent the worst but it is still a long way from perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Hobbes' had no problem in seeing anarchy (=democracy) as the polar opposite of tyranny (=absolute monarchy).

The fundamental flaw with the idea of anarchy, is that it represents an extreme version of democracy itself and therefore is the tyranny (of which I speak, no-one can exist in a personal society, at least, not for long).

It's arguable that a society with an absolute monarch, with the wisdom of <insert 'favourite philosopher' here> IS the polar opposite of tyranny...

22 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Remind me where I said anything about religious education being banned. No objection to Wicca and Mami Wata whatsoever.

You didn't, you just implied that they should be ignored; can you teach me the difference between ignored and banned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

can you teach me the difference between ignored and banned

One is passive and lets them continue on unabated and without pressure or influence while the other is active and seeks to halt all activities and remove them from existence entirely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To some extent the embrace of anarchism (in the less bomb-wielding sense being discussed here) is dependent on aspects of personality that are not homogeneous in human society.  While some people do value a high level of freedom and personal autonomy (and, if they are disciplined in their view, are willing to accept the decrease in personal security and increased social clash of values that might accompany this), there are others who crave a high level of "law and order" and a simplified nonpluralistic culture that has to be imposed by an authoritarian leader.  They may crave a society that is parental in its control and top-down decision-making.  Right-wing evangelical Christians, for example, often express the desire to have all submit to a divine will and be ruled by a theocratic ruler who will implement this.  They wish for a State that acts in loco parentis for the same reason they prefer a religion whose authority structure is modeled (as Freud and many others pointed out) on that of childhood.  Many people are, contra Benjamin Franklin's famous quote, quite willing to give up some liberty for the sake of security.  

Then there is the entrepreneurial wealth-seeking personality, which values freedom to conduct business more highly than other freedoms (e.g. social freedoms associated with the Left/Liberal platforms), and is fine with the cognitive dissonance of applauding regulatory freedom while stomping down social freedoms that might threaten their quest for personal enrichment and power (you want labor to stay cheap, cowed by police power, and not be afflicted with too much thinking or exploration of heterodox economic ideas).  They may be anarchic in business practices, but authoritarian when it comes to squelching calls for cleaning up their effluents and fumes - often the first to support harsh laws against public demonstrations or class-action suits.  

However all these billiard balls of temperament collide with each other, it seems to me that truly successful Liberalism lies in the protection of freedom of discourse in education, freedom of the press (and protection of the press from predatory capitalist control), religious freedom, and the preservation of an intellectual life that can subject authority in any form to constant questioning and dissection of its stated aims.  That questioning of received wisdom, of authority, seems to me to be at the heart of healthy anarchism, and must be protected by some kind of constitutional structure that can't be altered on a whim, or degraded because the world feels more dangerous than usual.  So there's that seeming paradox:  good anarchy requires a hardened bombproof structure of law.  

Edited by TheVat
all adjectives not created equal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, iNow said:

One is passive and lets them continue on unabated and without pressure or influence while the other is active and seeks to halt all activities and remove them from existence entirely

But, AFAIK, no banned book has ceased to exist; "why does everyone knowing something make it right?" and doesn't that, in and of itself, pressure and influence?

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

To some extent the embrace of anarchism (in the less bomb-wielding sense being discussed here) is dependent on aspects of personality that are not homogeneous in human society.  While some people do value a high level of freedom and personal autonomy (and, if they are disciplined in their view, are willing to accept the decrease in personal security and increased social clash of values that might accompany this), there are others who crave a high level of "law and order" and a simplified nonpluralistic culture that has to be imposed by an authoritarian leader.  They may crave a society that is parental in its control and top-down decision-making.  Right-wing evangelical Christians, for example, often express the desire to have all submit to a divine will and be ruled by a theocratic ruler who will implement this.  They wish for a State that acts in loco parentis for the same reason they prefer a religion whose authority structure is modeled (as Freud and many others pointed out) on that of childhood.  Many people are, contra Benjamin Franklin's famous quote, quite willing to give up some liberty for the sake of security. 

This reminds me of "The Matrix", the machines tried to impose a utopian society that was rejected because of some sort of instinct, that enables a human to magically determine the prison they're in; so they introduce imperfection's to quell that instinct, and by doing so they invite the coming of the one.

 

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

 So there's that seeming paradox:  good anarchy requires a hardened bombproof structure of law.  

 

indeed +1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, iNow said:

no

But the results are basically the same or worse, for instance, "why it's a good idea to be vaccinated" when ignored, it could be argued, is more dangerous than a ban; there's many an example of a banned record getting to number 1, in the hit parade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But the results are basically the same or worse, for instance

If you ignore a book, you don’t read it. If you ban a book, other people don’t read it, too. The former is a personal choice. The latter is a decision foisted upon others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 12:42 PM, dimreepr said:

The fundamental flaw with the idea of anarchy, is that it represents an extreme version of democracy itself and therefore is the tyranny (of which I speak, no-one can exist in a personal society, at least, not for long).

At first reading this appears to be just word soup. However...

Did you consider the logical flow of this sentence before you wrote it? What on earth is 'an extreme version of democracy'? Surely, the principle of democracy is that everybody's vote counts equally irrespective of their position in society. How do you get more extreme than equality? 

Are you just trying to worm in the word 'extreme' to suggest that your view is reasonable and mine is not?

That's hardly a noble tactic is it? More Daily Mailish that SFish.

So what you appear to be stating is democracy = tyranny. Well, it's a viewpoint, but not one I'd share. 

On 9/22/2022 at 12:42 PM, dimreepr said:

It's arguable that a society with an absolute monarch, with the wisdom of <insert 'favourite philosopher' here> IS the polar opposite of tyranny...

If that's what you really believe then just have the courage to say it. We're all entitled to our opinions.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I type this, Iran is in revolt. Women by the thousands are out in the streets burning their hijabs after a young girl died in custody of the “morality police” for issues with her head covering / hijab.

Where does this land on the anarchy scale under discussion here? What about when government agents start using exaggerated crowd control on them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, iNow said:

As I type this, Iran is in revolt. Women by the thousands are out in the streets burning their hijabs after a young girl died in custody of the “morality police” for issues with her head covering / hijab.

Where does this land on the anarchy scale under discussion here? What about when government agents start using exaggerated crowd control on them?

Pretty much the same as any progessive political analysis I guess.

Bad stuff happens under authoritarian regimes. Especially the religious ones where 'heresy' is a capital offence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Did you consider the logical flow of this sentence before you wrote it? What on earth is 'an extreme version of democracy'? Surely, the principle of democracy is that everybody's vote counts equally irrespective of their position in society. How do you get more extreme than equality? 

Anarchy, in it's purest form is individual, and with all the will in the world, not every individual is equal; and there's that parodox again, for every individual to be equally valid, there has to be a common understanding of individual value.

 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

If you ignore a book, you don’t read it. If you ban a book, other people don’t read it, too. The former is a personal choice. The latter is a decision foisted upon others.

The antipode of which is, If you ban a book, other people can’t wait to read it; isn't it more about the effectivity of the advert?

9 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

If that's what you really believe then just have the courage to say it. We're all entitled to our opinions.

It's what I believe a utopia might look like, when/if the anarchist's stop foisting their individual choice on other's; "the needs of the many..." etc.

6 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Pretty much the same as any progessive political analysis I guess.

Bad stuff happens under authoritarian regimes. Especially the religious ones where 'heresy' is a capital offence.

Please explain why religion is esspecially authoritarian/brutal?

9 hours ago, iNow said:

As I type this, Iran is in revolt. Women by the thousands are out in the streets burning their hijabs after a young girl died in custody of the “morality police” for issues with her head covering / hijab.

Where does this land on the anarchy scale under discussion here? What about when government agents start using exaggerated crowd control on them?

Of course anarchy has a place in any imperfect society, where it land's on the spectrum is in our purview of fairness; reminds me of this:

 

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I asked you why and you couldn't explain, what makes you think you're ground is sturdy?

Empirical evidence does not require an explanation to establish its validity.

However, you might consider why religious oligarchies bring with them a large package of strictures that are deemed exempt from public debate. Such as a creation myth for example that must be accepted as gospel in defiance of any observed evidence to the contrary. Or else. What benefit to society do such arbitrary faith based beliefs bring other than seek total subjugation of the individual? Absolutely toxic imho. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The antipode of which is, If you ban a book, other people can’t wait to read it; isn't it more about the effectivity of the advert?

That may be an outcome, too, but that’s an answer to a different question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.