The Necessity of Government

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: The Necessity of Government

Post by EquALLity »

It has been tested. Many times. It always fails. Anarchy is fundamentally unstable.
I read up on a few, and I would hardly say they were failures. At least not the ones I read about, not if you're comparing them to societies with governments. Feel free to educate.
Look, as an analogy, do you understand this: Earnshaw's theorem

Understand that, then you will be able to understand why you are so mistaken.
Are you saying that peaceful societies cannot exist when built only on people working together?
The failures of the communist revolution.

The nature of communism itself. Even just read Marx.
I am currently.
You can disagree with the observation that the Earth is not flat, but it doesn't stop it from being true.
I could apply that to any random nonsense. It doesn't automatically make the point being argued true.
Most people are religious and deeply unskeptical, and even among self described skeptics, most people are deeply irrational and non-skeptical about the vast majority of their lives and behaviors (even about certain canonical skeptic dogmas- yes, they exist), even among atheists there is deep and undeniable irrationality that pervades the community (look at the recent schism over Elevator-gate). Read the thread on Feminism here, in this very forum. Read the one on Bottled water. The one on Organic food. Read this very thread we're talking in right now and observe your own irrationality in promoting Anarchism, completely ignorant of political science, history, and every example of this kind of thinking ever.
A few things:
1) The world is becoming more open minded quickly- There are more veg*ns and secularists than ever before.
2) Lots of religious people support liberalistic things that their religion doesn't, like gay marriage. That's a step in the right direction.

Obviously if I'm arguing for something, I don't think it is/I am irrational. You also say that I'm completely ignorant of my position. I admit that I am fairly new to anarcho communism, but to say that I am completely ignorant of it is just ridiculous and insulting. I wasn't just like, "zomg, anarchism? so kool!!! #yolo #nogawdsnomasters #anarchist4life #rebel" I actually thought and learned about it. Ok? I didn't just switch from liberalism to anarcho communism. I don't even fully identify that way yet. I'm still kinda on the fence.
You don't understand the magnitude of authority required to suppress something as natural and emergent from the facts of economics and human nature as capitalism.
Capitalism is oppressive, what you're saying is like a very religious anti-gay marriage person saying that by allowing gay marriage, we are oppressing him because gay marriage is against his religion. It reminds me of something I saw a long time ago... "How dare you oppress my right to oppress others!"
Meh? Your argument is "Meh"?

Have you met people?
I just disagree. I don't think that people are as stupid as you make them out to be.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Necessity of Government

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: At least not the ones I read about, not if you're comparing them to societies with governments. Feel free to educate.
Anarchist societies fail by their own standards, because they always form authoritative structures of some kind (usually based on shunning and exile, or some cult leader who usually goes crazy and manipulates people or locks them up until they behave).

Which do you think were a success?
EquALLity wrote: Are you saying that peaceful societies cannot exist when built only on people working together?
That's pretty close.

Basically, it can work only if all of the forces precisely cancel- the social analogy would be if every person were precisely the same as to level of satisfaction, power, etc., with no variance.

That turns out to be impossible, because there are always minor perturbances, and as soon as the levitated object (in this case, capitalism being suspended) leans in one direction the smallest bit, there's an increased attraction from that direction which causes it to lean more, which increases the attraction more, etc.
Power magnifies in capitalism, which is what makes it inherently unstable. Capitalism always results in concentration of power until monopoly is reached, which can only be fixed by an outside stabilizing force acting on it.

If you're levitating things with magnets, that can be a small string tying it down, or an active system that controls electromagnets that keep it balanced.
All of these things represent some kind of authority in government, keeping the unchecked growth and injustice of capitalism in-check.

It turns out that government acts similarly- whereby in any system power tends to collect and corrupt. That's why authority within authority was established, with different branches of government having checks and balances against each other to seek a form of stability. And some form of democratic accountability to override the worst forms of opaque corruption. Even our best forms of government aren't perfectly stable, but so far they come close.

Your 'pure' Anarchism is absolute instability. Either capitalism takes over, or an authority forms to prevent it. Set it into balance, and as soon as you take your finger off it, it begins to decay.

Communism is a thing. Government is used to suppress capitalism and keep that system stable- but the means of stabilizing it turned out to be impractical (today, there might be ways to make it practical, but that's all theoretical).
Anarcho-capitalism is a thing- government is removed and capitalism is allowed to run wild and do whatever it was inclined to do (the levitating object just gets smashed into some magnet and stays there in a state of injustice). The idea that the rich would help the poor and make everything OK after that is the matter of contention.

Anarcho-communism isn't even a thing. It's not a coherent position you can hold.
EquALLity wrote: I could apply that to any random nonsense. It doesn't automatically make the point being argued true.
All you are doing is negating, that you don't believe something- my point is that your disbelief is not an argument.
EquALLity wrote: I wasn't just like, "zomg, anarchism? so kool!!! #yolo #nogawdsnomasters #anarchist4life #rebel"
That's what it looks like. That's what all anarcho-communists look like. Because they're advocating an impossible system.

You'r advocating square-circleism.

I'm sorry if calling an absurd thing absurd offends you, but it's true.
EquALLity wrote: I actually thought and learned about it. Ok?
If you think it could actually work, you did no such thing. That's like a Christian saying they've thought about how logical god is, and that it makes so much sense and must be through because they have reasoned this. At the very most you felt about it, or daydreamed about it, but you didn't really think about it.

You can't really think about square circles in any coherent way. Things that are logically incoherent do not bear thinking.
EquALLity wrote: I didn't just switch from liberalism to anarcho communism. I don't even fully identify that way yet. I'm still kinda on the fence.
That's good then.

Then you can learn why it can't possibly work.

EquALLity wrote: Capitalism is oppressive, what you're saying is like a very religious anti-gay marriage person saying that by allowing gay marriage, we are oppressing him because gay marriage is against his religion. It reminds me of something I saw a long time ago... "How dare you oppress my right to oppress others!"
You didn't understand my argument at all.

I'm not saying capitalism is good. I'm saying it's a natural consequence. Natural does not equal right.
In order to suppress something that's natural- whether that natural thing is good or bad- you have to use an equal and opposite force to do so, and use means to stabilize it (authority of some kind) to hold it in balance.
EquALLity wrote: I just disagree. I don't think that people are as stupid as you make them out to be.
You have a lot of reading to do. Look at elevatorgate.

Even the seemingly most rational people can be incredibly irrational. It's human nature.

That's why we need checks and balances. That's why we need adversarial politics. That's why we need Judges, juries, and opposing counsels in courts. That's why we need criticism, and peer review.
We are creatures of bias, ego, and cognitive dissonance. This is basic psychology, and it's the foundation of the scientific method.
When we are rational, and it's rare enough, we force each other to be rational through a delicate system of interconnected shared social authority which has hard rules, limits, and the ability to enforce them.

Why aren't hollow earthers and flat earthers allowed equal voices in geophysics? Authority. They're not allowed into the classrooms, they aren't permitted to teach those things in universities. Not only are they not taken seriously, they're physically locked out of the building if they try, they aren't allowed in the scientific journals.

Science has formed a collective authority which is hostile to pseudoscience and has a monopoly on grants and government funding to pursue its ends. This only works through meritocratic authority. You can't just tear down those barriers and imagine that everything just keeps working.

Wiki summarizes a couple of the criticisms well, which are some of the things I have said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_anarchism
Notice that the rebuttals to criticism amount to renouncing anarchism. Add them all up, and Anarchism that solves the problems of anarchism is no longer anarchism at all.

Anarchism isn't a political stance, it's a dogma that has no basis in reality.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: The Necessity of Government

Post by EquALLity »

Sorry for the late reply again.
EquALLity wrote:
At least not the ones I read about, not if you're comparing them to societies with governments. Feel free to educate.
Anarchist societies fail by their own standards, because they always form authoritative structures of some kind (usually based on shunning and exile, or some cult leader who usually goes crazy and manipulates people or locks them up until they behave).

Which do you think were a success?
How are you determining the success of a society?

From The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia
about Zomia. Their subsistence routines, their social organization, their physical dispersal, and many elements of their culture, far from being the archaic traits of a people left behind, are purposefully crafted both to thwart incorporation into nearby states and to minimize the likelihood that statelike concentrations of power will arise among them. State evasion and state prevention permeate their practices and, often, their ideology as well.
Basically, it can work only if all of the forces precisely cancel- the social analogy would be if every person were precisely the same as to level of satisfaction, power, etc., with no variance.

That turns out to be impossible, because there are always minor perturbances, and as soon as the levitated object (in this case, capitalism being suspended) leans in one direction the smallest bit, there's an increased attraction from that direction which causes it to lean more, which increases the attraction more, etc.
Power magnifies in capitalism, which is what makes it inherently unstable. Capitalism always results in concentration of power until monopoly is reached, which can only be fixed by an outside stabilizing force acting on it.

If you're levitating things with magnets, that can be a small string tying it down, or an active system that controls electromagnets that keep it balanced.
All of these things represent some kind of authority in government, keeping the unchecked growth and injustice of capitalism in-check.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't think it is valid. Capitalism creates hierarchy and authority, by suppressing it we would just be suppressing those things. You could argue that it takes authority to suppress authority (and you are), but that's the closest society to an anarchist one that we can reach.... This society doesn't create authority like a capitalist one, it just reacts to it. Your right to do something should cease when another being is effected. Suppressing oppression is the best we can do.
Anarcho-capitalism is a thing- government is removed and capitalism is allowed to run wild and do whatever it was inclined to do (the levitating object just gets smashed into some magnet and stays there in a state of injustice).
Capitalism creates unnecessary hierarchy, which anarchism is opposed to. I see anarcho-capitalism as the oxymoron.
I'm sorry if calling an absurd thing absurd offends you, but it's true.
It doesn't. Saying that I'm completely ignorant of something I claim to subscribe to does, though.
You have a lot of reading to do. Look at elevatorgate.

Even the seemingly most rational people can be incredibly irrational. It's human nature.
I did the first time you told me about it, and I already knew that everyone is irrational sometimes.... But the overwhelming majority of people aren't irrational enough to try to start a war over gay marriage in a society built on mutual cooperation.
Wiki summarizes a couple of the criticisms well, which are some of the things I have said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_anarchism
I read it. What specifically do you want me to address?
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Necessity of Government

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't think it is valid.
I think you do, and you just disagree on definitions.
EquALLity wrote: You could argue that it takes authority to suppress authority (and you are), but that's the closest society to an anarchist one that we can reach.... This society doesn't create authority like a capitalist one, it just reacts to it. Your right to do something should cease when another being is effected. Suppressing oppression is the best we can do.
And that's fine, but that's not really Anarchism.

I have no problem with wanting a society that is *closer* to anarchism- that's not impossible.

What you are describing is more like a libertarian communism. Being, the least authority possible while maintaining enough government to suppress the domination of capitalism.

Libertarian Communism is not Anarchism.

EquALLity wrote: Capitalism creates unnecessary hierarchy, which anarchism is opposed to. I see anarcho-capitalism as the oxymoron.
And yet suppressing capitalism requires authority, which negates Anarchism too.

All you can do, whether Communistic or Capitalistic, is eliminate authority to the greatest extent possible in that context.

In neither case can people have their cakes and eat them too.

Anarchism itself is an oxymoron when posed as a system.

EquALLity wrote: It doesn't. Saying that I'm completely ignorant of something I claim to subscribe to does, though.
If you were a Libertarian Communist, I couldn't assert that. That's a system that is, while a questionable ideal with few examples, not inherently impossible.

All Anarchists are completely ignorant of anarchism, unless they are insane, because it's inherently contradictory- it's an impossible system. You can't understand that and simultaneously subscribe to it unless you are a crazy person.

In the same way, you can say that a theist who believes his or her god is omniscient, yet maintains that he or she has free will, basically doesn't understand his or her own beliefs. An honest theist admits that it's beyond his or her understanding, or concedes one point or the other.
EquALLity wrote: I did the first time you told me about it, and I already knew that everyone is irrational sometimes....
That's all it takes.
EquALLity wrote: But the overwhelming majority of people aren't irrational enough to try to start a war over gay marriage in a society built on mutual cooperation.
Not right away. Small conflicts escalate into larger ones. Ideological gulfs grow.

Take two groups of people, and give them different colored clothing, and just tell them they're different teams without any other prompting, and hostility will grow between the groups as their identities form.

With any group larger than 50 or so people, irreconcilable cliques begin to form, and without close interpersonal relationships guiding interactions with strangers, hostility builds at an alarming pace over the most petty differences without moderating forces.
EquALLity wrote: I read it. What specifically do you want me to address?
The fact that the only defense of Anarchism is retreat from anarchism.

Anarchism is not a thing.

If you want minimal government, and minimal authority, fine - that's possible - but Anarchism as a 'system' is inherently irrational and internally contradictory.

Only people who are ignorant of Anarchism and its implications can subscribe to Anarchism.
I don't charge you with ignorance on this point lightly or without evidence. It just is not possible for a sane and rational person to be an Anarchist while simultaneously fully understanding what Anarchism is.

My only assumption is that you are sane, and generally value rationality.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: The Necessity of Government

Post by EquALLity »

Oh geez, I've really extended my reply limit, and I don't have computer access right now, so I am responding on my mobile. I will therefore have to type out whatever I put in quotations, so I won't be writing everything you say, just the beginnings.
I think you do,
This may have happened. :p
And that's fine, but...
If anarchism = absolutely no authority, I could not support that for reasons you explained. In fact literally nobody could, as there couldn't be a society completely without authority, peaceful or not. If anyone ever hurts someone else, and that person gets back at them, they have both acted as authorities, and that situation is unavoidable.

I see anarchism as a society with the least authority possible while remaining peaceful.
What you are describing...
I thought libertarian communism and anarcho communism were completely interchangeable?
And yet suppressing...
This is true, but with anarcho communism, the only authority is necessary to keep people from being oppressed. But I acknowledge it still is "technically" authority.
If you were a...
I understand your reasoning behind saying I'm ignorant now. A society completely without authority is unattainable, so true anarchism is unattainable. It makes sense.
Not right away...
What could a government do to do any more than just delay this chaos, without using violent and fear tactics themselves, though?
The fact that...
I think I already addressed everything there in this response.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Necessity of Government

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: If anarchism = absolutely no authority, I could not support that for reasons you explained. In fact literally nobody could, as there couldn't be a society completely without authority, peaceful or not.
Crazy people can and do support it.
Also young children who have been led to believe by crazy people that it is possible and/or good for some reason (usually through music of some kind).
EquALLity wrote: If anyone ever hurts someone else, and that person gets back at them, they have both acted as authorities, and that situation is unavoidable.
That's part of anarchy, when there is no check on the escalation of violence and retribution. Anarchy means no central authority to repress personal action on any matters- each person can struggle freely to take vengeance, or take whatever they want. In Anarchy the only motivator to action is personal power to do what one will; authority is what suppresses that natural chaos.
EquALLity wrote: I see anarchism as a society with the least authority possible while remaining peaceful.
That's not what Anarchy is. Anarchy isn't supposed to be peaceful. It's defined as having no central or governmental authority whatsoever- even the barest minimum to have trials for criminals, or regulate commerce.

an·ar·chy noun \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
: a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

Also see:
Full Definition of ANARCHY

1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>
Note the bolded words in part c.

No government -- at all.


See also:

Definition of UTOPIAN

1
: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a utopia; especially : having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization
2
: proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes <utopian idealists>
3
: impossibly ideal : visionary <recognised the utopian nature of his hopes — C. S. Kilby>
4
: believing in, advocating, or having the characteristics of utopian socialism <utopian doctrines> <utopian novels>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utopian[1]


NOBODY takes Anarchists seriously, except for when they engage in terrorism (which they often do), in which case the threat they pose to society and the lives of civilians may be taken seriously, but the ideals still aren't -- because they are inherently impossible.

Only crazy people and the ignorantly misled are anarchists.

EquALLity wrote: I thought libertarian communism and anarcho communism were completely interchangeable?
No. They are very different.
Anarchists may want people to think they're interchangeable.

Libertarianism is a thing.
That is, the smallest possible amount of government oversight to get things done and maintain social peace and stability.

Anarchism is no government at all. Full stop.

EquALLity wrote: This is true, but with anarcho communism, the only authority is necessary to keep people from being oppressed. But I acknowledge it still is "technically" authority.
Which is why anarcho-communism isn't a thing. But Libertarian Communism is.
EquALLity wrote: I understand your reasoning behind saying I'm ignorant now. A society completely without authority is unattainable, so true anarchism is unattainable. It makes sense.
Thank you.
EquALLity wrote: What could a government do to do any more than just delay this chaos, without using violent and fear tactics themselves, though?
Nothing. The ultimate root of government authority is the right to exercise force (when it comes to it) to defend the law.

I don't agree with Penn Jillette generally, but he explains his Libertarianism pretty well:
Penn Jillette wrote:I know barely enough about Max Weber to type his name into Google, but it seems he’s credited with asserting the idea that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. I put those two ideas together (my consent and use of physical force) and figure we all give our government the right to use force. So, the way I figure, it’s not okay for our government to use force in any situation where I personally wouldn’t use force.

For example, if I’m not willing to kill a cute cow, I shouldn’t eat steak. I don’t have to kill Bessy right now with my bare hands, but I have to be willing to snuff her if I want to chow down on a T-bone. If it’s not okay for me, it’s not okay for a slaughterhouse. Asking someone else to do something immoral is immoral. If it’s not okay for me to break David Blaine’s hands so my magic show has less competition, it’s not okay for me to ask someone else to beat him up. Someone else doing your dirty work is still your dirty work.

If I had a gun, and I knew a murder was happening, (we’re speaking hypothetically here, I’m not asking you to believe that I could accurately tell a murder from aggressive CPR), I would use that gun to stop that murder. I might be too much of a coward to use a gun myself to stop a murder or rape or robbery, but I think the use of a gun is justified. I’m even okay with using force to enforce voluntary contracts. If I were a hero, I would use a gun to protect the people who choose to live under this free system and to stop another country from attacking America. But I wouldn’t use a gun to force someone to love something like say…a library.

Look, I love libraries. I spent a lot of time in the Greenfield Public Library when I was a child. I would give money to build a library. I would ask you to give money to build a library. But, if for some reason you were crazy enough to think you had a better idea for your money than building my library, I wouldn’t pull a gun on you. I wouldn’t use a gun to build an art museum, look at the wonders of the universe through a big telescope, or even find a cure for cancer.

The fact that the majority wants something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don’t want to pay for it. If you have to use a gun, it’s not really a very good idea. Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It’s just ganging up on the weird kid, and I’m always the weird kid.

People try to argue that government isn’t really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment though -- suggesting someone not pay their taxes is probably a federal offense, and while I may be a nut, I’m not crazy.) When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2254980/posts
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: The Necessity of Government

Post by EquALLity »

Ah, I see. I shall identify as a libertarian communist from now on, then.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
PrincessPeach
Senior Member
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:36 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Necessity of Government

Post by PrincessPeach »

EquALLity wrote:Ah, I see. I shall identify as a libertarian communist from now on, then.
Or you could self identify yourself as a human being, that is what you are.

I think the point of the matter is, you can never have peace in freedom.

Anarchy would mean one would have complete freedom of their choices, not everyone will agree with one another's personal choices if anarchy were to accrue, figuratively speaking there could never be peace in anarchy, no peace in freedom it's not plausible.
Don't be a waste of molecules
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Necessity of Government

Post by brimstoneSalad »

PrincessPeach wrote: Or you could self identify yourself as a human being, that is what you are.
That works too.

Politically, self-identity seems incredibly limited. If we don't have proof of which political process or policies are best, why would we anchor ourselves to them? It seems too much like a dogma.

I'm just a critical thinker, and an independent. Prove to me some political policy is good, and will have beneficial results for the country and the things I care about, and I'm behind it until the evidence blows the other way. Political ideologies are the worst way to engage in politics, because they're the least flexible and the least susceptible to reason.

Once you label yourself anything, you tend to get stuck with it.
It's naive to reject the utility of labels entirely, but in the very least we should be very mindful of what labels we take on, and only do so when really necessary (like taking a philosophical/moral stand). When we get into politics, the dogmas start to become unevidenced empirical claims about reality, and that's where labels become very problematic.
PrincessPeach
Senior Member
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 1:36 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: The Necessity of Government

Post by PrincessPeach »

brimstoneSalad wrote: That works too.

Politically, self-identity seems incredibly limited. If we don't have proof of which political process or policies are best, why would we anchor ourselves to them? It seems too much like a dogma.

I'm just a critical thinker, and an independent. Prove to me some political policy is good, and will have beneficial results for the country and the things I care about, and I'm behind it until the evidence blows the other way. Political ideologies are the worst way to engage in politics, because they're the least flexible and the least susceptible to reason.

Once you label yourself anything, you tend to get stuck with it.
It's naive to reject the utility of labels entirely, but in the very least we should be very mindful of what labels we take on, and only do so when really necessary (like taking a philosophical/moral stand). When we get into politics, the dogmas start to become unevidenced empirical claims about reality, and that's where labels become very problematic.
I don't even like self identifying myself as a 'vegan atheist' I've questioned taking it off my profile but it is true, is self identifying yourself as a vegan a label or stating a matter of fact ?
I don't dig too deeply into politics because I feel I have no real say in it so what's the sense of following something that I can't change? I am an American and I feel this country is too corrupt. Where is the truth in politics in America?
Don't be a waste of molecules
Post Reply