Political Crossfire Forums

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

Sallust wrote: So to you, being able to, say, kill without repercussions is liberty? If that's the case, I don't think liberty is necessary, or even a good thing to have. You can have liberty and still have some limits placed.

I would also say that absolute liberty is a good, and necessary, thing for the modern world. The problem is not that Anarchy would allow people to murder each other without repercussions, the problem is that there is a need to murder in the first place.

There can be no liberty with limits. Limits on freedom is nothing short of a lesser dictatorship. Every government, even a democracy, acts as an autonomous body that serves itself above the citizen. The only liberty, is total liberty. Without that sense of absolute freedom, we are still chained to the system.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

LostSoul3412 wrote:

There can be no liberty with limits.

be sure to tell that to the other guy when he exercises his liberty on your ass....

Sallust · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 14 Location: New York

LostSoul3412 wrote: Sallust wrote: So to you, being able to, say, kill without repercussions is liberty? If that's the case, I don't think liberty is necessary, or even a good thing to have. You can have liberty and still have some limits placed.

I would also say that absolute liberty is a good, and necessary, thing for the modern world. The problem is not that Anarchy would allow people to murder each other without repercussions, the problem is that there is a need to murder in the first place.

There can be no liberty with limits. Limits on freedom is nothing short of a lesser dictatorship. Every government, even a democracy, acts as an autonomous body that serves itself above the citizen. The only liberty, is total liberty. Without that sense of absolute freedom, we are still chained to the system. The need to murder is as old as the human race. An anarchy would simply allow humans to do as they pleased. that kind of disorganization cannot exist in human culture. the fact that we are where we are is prrof that anarchy will not last. The earliest cavemen were, technically, in an anarchal society. Nonetheless, agriculture managed to come about, and with it a more organized level of culture. A spiral down into Anarchy in this age would have the exact same effect, or close enough. tribes would form, then towns, then cities, then empires. eventually, in all likelikelihood, we would end up in a similar situation to now. Unless, of course, you think that doing things all over again might yield more hopeful results this time. That's a bit of a big chance to take, don't you think?

And, back to the question of liberty. A government has the sole purpose of controlling, at least to some degree, those citizens under it. Power has to be afforded to governments because without them we would fall back into the times of cavemen. And anyway, a dictatorship is the rule of a single person. It has nothing to do with the amount of freedoms afforded to the individual. While this tends to happen anyway, the nature of the governmental body doesn't change.

Complete freedom is a paradox unto itself. The abilty to exercise complete and total will on another by definition take freedom from another. Limits have to be placed in order to enforce freedom.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

In current society, yes, Anarchy is doomed to failure. While I still believe that Anarchy is ideal and attainable, the world still has a long way to go before we can accomplish that feat.

Also, there is no necessity for a government to have any power what so ever. A government should not have rights, or power over the citizens that it is trying to protect/represent. A government should exist for the sole sake of protecting the rights of the individual, not determining those rights.

Every government is going to take away liberty in variable degrees. An oppressive dictator is definitely going to take more than a democracy, but both still take away power. Power should rest with the individual, and not the notion of some higher political power.

As far as the notions of "cavemen", that is why I stated that the world has a long way to go before Anarchy is able to work. Still, it is plausible and achievable. But that's a another argument for another day.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

Sallust wrote: Fido wrote: Sallust wrote: Liberty is a very difficult term to describe simply because it means different things to different people. For me, liberty is the ability to think and act with freedom. Under this definition, liberty needs limits placed on it, or else any whim can be allowed to become reality. Who actually thinks complete liberty would be a good thing?
I think complete liberty is a good thing, but I don't define it as license or privilage. Liberty is alway complete, or it is not liberty. So to you, being able to, say, kill without repercussions is liberty? If that's the case, I don't think liberty is necessary, or even a good thing to have. You can have liberty and still have some limits placed.

Liberty is a virtue, and like every other virtue is seen through the lens of society. The last man on earth would not be free. Any other person might be free in relation to a free society, more free than society would like, or free in relation to a un-free society. It is a myth we accept that one can be more than relatively free in relation to another. The slave owner may not pull a plow, but he is not free of slavery, not free of its implications nor of its necessity to himself. He is not absolutly free, nor is his slave absolutly slave. Slavery is a form of human relationship even when one side believes the other inhuman.
So, one may not kill without repercussions and be free. Liberty is as much a moral state as a physical state, and both are a facet of ones relationship with society.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

LostSoul3412 wrote: In current society, yes, Anarchy is doomed to failure. While I still believe that Anarchy is ideal and attainable, the world still has a long way to go before we can accomplish that feat.

Also, there is no necessity for a government to have any power what so ever. A government should not have rights, or power over the citizens that it is trying to protect/represent. A government should exist for the sole sake of protecting the rights of the individual, not determining those rights.

Every government is going to take away liberty in variable degrees. An oppressive dictator is definitely going to take more than a democracy, but both still take away power. Power should rest with the individual, and not the notion of some higher political power.

As far as the notions of "cavemen", that is why I stated that the world has a long way to go before Anarchy is able to work. Still, it is plausible and achievable. But that's a another argument for another day.

Who says anarchy does not work? What do you call Capitalism if not anarchy? It is because Capital is ungoverned that people must be governed.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

While I do believe that Anarchy does work, current society has a long way to go to achieve that freedom. The first thing that needs to happen is the elimination of currency. Nations must institute free trade with every other nation on the planet, and not use it as a bargaining chip on the diplomacy table. Next, a global market must be created, instead of independent nations economies. From that, a planet-wide government must be installed to turn the economic unity into a political and social unity as well. Then, money will become an obsolete idea, and will be destroyed by the people that created it. If the entire world is working towards the common good, and realize that everything affects humanity as a whole, then the competition for money will become obsolete as well. From there, the global government will become and obsolete institution as well, because the elimination of negative competition will eliminate the "dog-eat-dog world" that many believe Anarchy creates.

Like Communism, Anarchy is a political, social, and economic institution. It cannot be contained to only one aspect of life, because it must be in place in all aspects to be true freedom. The difference between capitalism and Anarchy is the competition that coincides with capitalism. Anarchy does not breed competition, Anarchy creates total freedom which eliminates the need for competition.

But, if the world was to suddenly wake up tomorrow and decide that it wants to be an Anarchy now, it would not last. Not only do the political governments and economic powerfigrues need to be changed, but the mindset of the common citizen needs to change as well. When we stop thinking in terms of selfishness, and start thinking in terms of humanity as a whole, then the competition that creates the evil in the world will become extinct with the new mindset of the individual. From there, the individual can live to its full potential, control its own life, and be truly free.

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2418

LostSoul3412 wrote: While I still believe that Anarchy is ideal and attainable, the world still has a long way to go before we can accomplish that feat.

In other words, human nature must undergo a far-reaching fundamental transformation before anarchy could possibly work.

That's why "anarchy" should be relegated to the dustbin with all of the other utopian pipe dreams.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

Not at all. Nothing should ever be discarded from the annuals of political philosophy because free exchanger of ideas is the basis of any liberty. While Anarchy does have many changes that need to take place before it can be sustainable, that does not mean that the world should abandon all hope for true freedom by deeming it a "pipe dream".

While it is a utopia, I still believe that it is the best, and only, form of utopia that the world can, and will, attain.

Sallust · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 14 Location: New York

LostSoul3412 wrote: In current society, yes, Anarchy is doomed to failure. While I still believe that Anarchy is ideal and attainable, the world still has a long way to go before we can accomplish that feat.

Also, there is no necessity for a government to have any power what so ever. A government should not have rights, or power over the citizens that it is trying to protect/represent. A government should exist for the sole sake of protecting the rights of the individual, not determining those rights.

Every government is going to take away liberty in variable degrees. An oppressive dictator is definitely going to take more than a democracy, but both still take away power. Power should rest with the individual, and not the notion of some higher political power.

As far as the notions of "cavemen", that is why I stated that the world has a long way to go before Anarchy is able to work. Still, it is plausible and achievable. But that's a another argument for another day. In order for a government to protect the rights of the individual, it must take some rights away from other individuals. The right to property, for instance, is taken away when one person steals from another person. It is the governments job to protect the right of property, so the thief would have to be punished, or prevented from stealing again. That would take away the thief's rights to his freedom and property, or anything else that might be forfeited by breaking the law. There is a reason that law exists, and it is to keep necessary rights and eliminate certain rights of those who defile the law. The very idea of rights implies that law must exist, for rights state the powers and priveliges individuals have over the government.

Anarchy is the political form of chaos. While it is most certainly necessary at some times, it is not a sustainable way to keep society. "Without order nothing can exist. Without chaos nothing can evolve." A balance needs to be struck between order and chaos. We need to keep going and progressing, but we risk dooming ourselves if we succumb to pure chaos.

Anarchy would also be ineffective simply because of the number of people in the world. We are barely sustaining ourselves now, with all our agriculture and laws and way of keeping things stable. Introducing the idea of anarchy to the common people will be unattractive because descent in a state of disorder because it would require the sacrifice of thousands, if not millions of lives. Mindsets don't change at the drop of a hat. Even centuries of time are unlikely to change the way people think so drastically. To be realistic, human thought processes haven't changed at all in thousands of years. Anarchy could've taken hold at any time during the past couple of millenia, but it has repeatedly been rejected. Just because you think anarchy would be preferable to our current situation doesn't mean the rest of the world will.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

RueTheDay wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: While I still believe that Anarchy is ideal and attainable, the world still has a long way to go before we can accomplish that feat.

In other words, human nature must undergo a far-reaching fundamental transformation before anarchy could possibly work.

That's why "anarchy" should be relegated to the dustbin with all of the other utopian pipe dreams.

and yet

RueTheDay wrote: What is "liberty"?

Let's start with the most basic definition of "an absence of constraints upon thought or action" and work from there.

:lol:

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2418

The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: While I still believe that Anarchy is ideal and attainable, the world still has a long way to go before we can accomplish that feat.

In other words, human nature must undergo a far-reaching fundamental transformation before anarchy could possibly work.

That's why "anarchy" should be relegated to the dustbin with all of the other utopian pipe dreams.

and yet

RueTheDay wrote: What is "liberty"?

Let's start with the most basic definition of "an absence of constraints upon thought or action" and work from there.

:lol:

You continue to make yourself look sillier with every post.

My point is that liberty is not the ultimate social good to be maximized, contrary to the opinions of the non-thinking libertarians and anarchists.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: While I still believe that Anarchy is ideal and attainable, the world still has a long way to go before we can accomplish that feat.

In other words, human nature must undergo a far-reaching fundamental transformation before anarchy could possibly work.

That's why "anarchy" should be relegated to the dustbin with all of the other utopian pipe dreams.

and yet

RueTheDay wrote: What is "liberty"?

Let's start with the most basic definition of "an absence of constraints upon thought or action" and work from there.

:lol:

You continue to make yourself look sillier with every post.

My point is that liberty is not the ultimate social good to be maximized, contrary to the opinions of the non-thinking libertarians and anarchists.

that because you equate liberty as the same as "absolute freedom" or "anarchy." a strawman if ever i saw one!

"man is born free, and yet everywhere lives in chains."

an indivdual has no meaningful liberty, and there is no such thing as a society of individuals. liberty is the paradox between the individual and all others, and this has always been true. it is a relative, paradoxical concept arisen in the natural paradox between the self and society of "other selves."

the condition of being at liberty is defined by that paradox, the absolute "maximized" concept of liberty is a product of your own homo economicus mentality, and is insulting to those who already know better.

you confuse "liberty" the word, with the state of being at liberty in the real world. then, you pretend the trade-off is not the paradox of "liberty." your state of denial is nothing if not impressive.

:lol:

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

Sallust wrote: In order for a government to protect the rights of the individual, it must take some rights away from other individuals. The right to property, for instance, is taken away when one person steals from another person. It is the governments job to protect the right of property, so the thief would have to be punished, or prevented from stealing again.

Deterrence is not an effective way to bar someone from his rights. The key is to eliminate the need or drive to take from another, not to restrict the individual from doing so. Also, the government does nothing but take away rights of the individual, and that is the all forms of government are oppressive. Some more than others, granted, but even a liberal democracy is still restricting the citizen's rights.

Sallust wrote: There is a reason that law exists, and it is to keep necessary rights and eliminate certain rights of those who defile the law. The very idea of rights implies that law must exist, for rights state the powers and privileges individuals have over the government.

You are right as to why laws exist, but that is also why they should be eliminated. Laws do nothing but restrict the rights of the individual, and that is why they work against the common citizen, and prevent the individual from ever being truly free. Liberty cannot exist with laws in place.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

LostSoul3412 wrote: Laws do nothing but restrict the rights of the individual, and that is why they work against the common citizen, and prevent the individual from ever being truly free. Liberty cannot exist with laws in place.

that is pure bulls**t.

laws exist to protect the state of liberty. absolute freedom cannot exist with laws, and liberty cannot exist without laws.

liberty is not a state of absolute license, WAKE UP.

Sallust · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 14 Location: New York

And how do you propose to eliminate the drive to take? Humans aren't robots, we can't just have a sudden switch in the way we function. History has proved that humans are very close to being naturally "evil." We have the basic instinct of survival, even at the deterrence of others of our species. Humans are constantly at war with one another, from large scale, to personal levels. Taking away the desire to hurt or steal from human beings is near enough to impossible. It is practically inevitable that the human race will eventually run down on its own agenda, slowly destroying itself. It may be that there is an answer, but it is far too early right now to try to predict what that answer is.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

The Impeacher wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Laws do nothing but restrict the rights of the individual, and that is why they work against the common citizen, and prevent the individual from ever being truly free. Liberty cannot exist with laws in place.

that is pure bulls**t.

laws exist to protect the state of liberty. absolute freedom cannot exist with laws, and liberty cannot exist without laws.

liberty is not a state of absolute license, WAKE UP.

How can laws exist to protect liberty, when all they do is restrict the liberties we have? Without laws, the individual is free to do whatever he pleases; hence, true liberty. That liberty is restricted with the institutionalization of laws and regulations that prevent the individual from exercising those rights. How can you say that liberty cannot exist without laws, when all that laws do is restrict your state of liberty? Individual rights and individual freedoms are all granted at birth. In its initial state, man is truly free. That all changes when he is placed under the laws of the state he lives is. Laws that bind him to society and the collective nation. That is the problem with liberty. Liberty is an individual concept, and can only apply to the individual. When freedom is put into terms of the collective nation, that is when the government becomes above the people. Lawmakers and policemen are still subject to the laws that they put in place and enforce, but in today's society, those people are a higher echelon of life. Regardless of position in society, every single person is equal. Every single person has ultimate freedoms, and laws do nothing but restrict that freedom. Laws attempt to set a collective standard of freedom, and therefore attempt to place the law as a higher entity than the people it "protects". The same applies to government. Once laws and nations become autonomous bodies, freedom is collectivized and lost. Freedom is equivalent to the people it applies to. There is no freedom without the individual, and there is no individual without freedom. Laws and government attempt to collectivize and standardize the people subjugated to it, and therefore laws work against liberty.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

Sallust wrote: And how do you propose to eliminate the drive to take? Humans aren't robots, we can't just have a sudden switch in the way we function. History has proved that humans are very close to being naturally "evil." We have the basic instinct of survival, even at the deterrence of others of our species. Humans are constantly at war with one another, from large scale, to personal levels. Taking away the desire to hurt or steal from human beings is near enough to impossible. It is practically inevitable that the human race will eventually run down on its own agenda, slowly destroying itself. It may be that there is an answer, but it is far too early right now to try to predict what that answer is.

The drive to be better can never be eliminated. You're arguing against something I did not say. What I said was that greed is the problem, to which there is no solution.

What can be done, however, is to create a sense of responsibility within the individual that drives them to be accountable for their own actions, without laws. Humans are always going to struggle against one another, that's just human nature, but it is also human nature to want to be happy. The current idea of happiness is material gain only. Emotional gain is not important, and money is the only thing that matters to current society. On a general scale, people conform their desires to the societies they live in. In America, that's a society of wealth and monetary gain. Eliminate the monetary aspect of society, and you eliminate the drive to gain only money.

Sallust · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 14 Location: New York

LostSoul3412 wrote: Sallust wrote: And how do you propose to eliminate the drive to take? Humans aren't robots, we can't just have a sudden switch in the way we function. History has proved that humans are very close to being naturally "evil." We have the basic instinct of survival, even at the deterrence of others of our species. Humans are constantly at war with one another, from large scale, to personal levels. Taking away the desire to hurt or steal from human beings is near enough to impossible. It is practically inevitable that the human race will eventually run down on its own agenda, slowly destroying itself. It may be that there is an answer, but it is far too early right now to try to predict what that answer is.

The drive to be better can never be eliminated. You're arguing against something I did not say. What I said was that greed is the problem, to which there is no solution.

What can be done, however, is to create a sense of responsibility within the individual that drives them to be accountable for their own actions, without laws. Humans are always going to struggle against one another, that's just human nature, but it is also human nature to want to be happy. The current idea of happiness is material gain only. Emotional gain is not important, and money is the only thing that matters to current society. On a general scale, people conform their desires to the societies they live in. In America, that's a society of wealth and monetary gain. Eliminate the monetary aspect of society, and you eliminate the drive to gain only money. I just have to ask. Are you propsoign that the world eventually become an anarchy? And if so, then do you expect us to keep the same level of technology we have now? If the world enters a state in which there is no government, why should people work? You suggest getting rid of money, but what then will we use as motivation to work? Livestock? You have to take care of livestock, and your job will eventually be discarded. And don't give me any of your argument that people will see the common good and they will work for nothing. Something like that has never happened, and it will never happen. And even if that mindset came to be, how would you eke out a living? There would be no governments to pay you in food, because you would get rid of them all together. If you want an anarchy with an extremely low level of technology, then that won't be too hard. But in no way are you going to persuade people to give up all that they have.

And also, for an example of anarchy, look at some parts of Africa. In their anarchal state, a leader rises up, creates an army, and drives his underlings into war. Humans have a natural tendency to follow charismatic (or powerful) people. Hitler, for instance. Post-WWI Germany was anarchal, and Hitler managed to take it over. Yes, I know there was technically a government in effect at that time, but its holding over the people was not firm, and things were a mess. Your supposed anarchy would not last, and hundreds of civil wars would spring up everywher.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

I am proposing that the world will become an anarchical society if it follows certain conditions and goes through certain steps to make government an obsolete institution altogether. I am saying that the people do not need a government dictating their rights for them. Every individual is capable of running their own lives based on the individual's moral compass, not based off the a governmental body that has no connection to the individual.

Without money, the motivation to work comes from the individual itself. Without money as a deciding factor, the individual can determine what to do with their life by their passions, not by their greed. I am not advocating any common good, but rather an individual good, and an individual responsibility to itself. A common good is what restricts freedom in the first place.

Certainly people won't work without benefit of their labors, but they will work towards self-actualization and towards making themselves a better person. By eliminating money, the labor force is run by their passions, and if a worker is doing a job they enjoy, then production will be considerably better. As far as food goes, you would either have to grow your own, or come up with a trade with a farmer. For example, you are a knitter, and you trade a blanket for a bushel of corn.

But what's to stop the knitter from simply taking the corn? Well, as part of the farmer's self-actualization, he would feel compelled to protect his produced goods; and hence gives an implied individual responsibility.

As far as the issue of technology goes, I don't believe the tech-level of the civilization really matters. What matters is the clause of self-actualization. If humanity does not want to make itself better, than I agree, Anarchy will fail. However, if the individual seeks to gain its full potential and garnish true liberty and power of his/her own life, then Anarchy will reign because government would have become an obsolete ideal. All people have the power to govern themselves, what they need is the will to do so.