Political Compass

[heyrabbit]

It's more of paradox than an ideology or even a "way of life".everything about it is hypocritical. Anarchism only "works" if it has a political system to exploit, which doesn't make any sense because the whole point of anarchy is to abolish government. it doesn't even work on paper, so there's no point in even entertaining the idea. not only is anarchism not the same thing as socialism, it's completely opposite in many ways.

 

you need to understand that no matter what government or lack of government exists, there's always ownership.you can't just make make things disappear. The world is basically just a bunch of objects and people spend their entire lives levying over them. individualism and "true freedom" is completely dependant on the first and most important law of nature; the right to life. After that comes the right to property, but the right to live -in other words, "own yourself" - is something that everyone subscribes to. You say that Anarchists are against domination and objectification, but you wouldn't feel that way unless you valued yourself as an object.

 

the only reason why you suggest that socialism is the only gateway to anarchism is because it's less absurd to think that anarchism can be born out of a society of individuals who earn their product than one that redistributes it's wealth to the undeserving. In other words, the similarity between socialism and anarchism that you've alluded to is nothing more than "I don't wanna work I just want to bang on my drum all day". Both socialism and anarchism demand unearned wealth. That's why hierarchy, capitalism and free markets don't appeal to you.

 

The only way you can achieve this is by leetching off of societies who've naturally form governments and created a product. You want the product, but you don't like authority. That's why I said that anarchists are hypocrites. With all do respect, anyone who doesn't like our government can go live in a forest somewhere and enjoy a life of no rules, and complete ownership over nothing... until normal people come and want ownership over your land. Anarchists do exist, they're called bums. But even they aren't true anarchists because every sidewalk is owned by someone.

 

I think i'm a jackass.

[Dan #2]

Anarchism is a lot like communism. It makes a whole lot of sense, but it just doesn't work, which is unfortunate.

 

i've been giving it a lot of thought lately.

 

Makes me want to be a squatter.

[supercanuk]

It's more of paradox than an ideology or even a "way of life".everything about it is hypocritical. Anarchism only "works" if it has a political system to exploit, which doesn't make any sense because the whole point of anarchy is to abolish government. it doesn't even work on paper, so there's no point in even entertaining the idea. not only is anarchism not the same thing as socialism, it's completely opposite in many ways.

 

you need to understand that no matter what government or lack of government exists, there's always ownership.you can't just make make things disappear. The world is basically just a bunch of objects and people spend their entire lives levying over them. individualism and "true freedom" is completely dependant on the first and most important law of nature; the right to life. After that comes the right to property, but the right to live -in other words, "own yourself" - is something that everyone subscribes to. You say that Anarchists are against domination and objectification, but you wouldn't feel that way unless you valued yourself as an object.

 

the only reason why you suggest that socialism is the only gateway to anarchism is because it's less absurd to think that anarchism can be born out of a society of individuals who earn their product than one that redistributes it's wealth to the undeserving. In other words, the similarity between socialism and anarchism that you've alluded to is nothing more than "I don't wanna work I just want to bang on my drum all day". Both socialism and anarchism demand unearned wealth. That's why hierarchy, capitalism and free markets don't appeal to you.

 

The only way you can achieve this is by leetching off of societies who've naturally form governments and created a product. You want the product, but you don't like authority. That's why I said that anarchists are hypocrites. With all do respect, anyone who doesn't like our government can go live in a forest somewhere and enjoy a life of no rules, and complete ownership over nothing... until normal people come and want ownership over your land. Anarchists do exist, they're called bums. But even they aren't true anarchists because every sidewalk is owned by someone.

 

I think i'm a jackass.

Well again, lol i have to disagree, but that

[TheKwas]

It's more of paradox than an ideology or even a "way of life".everything about it is hypocritical. Anarchism only "works" if it has a political system to exploit, which doesn't make any sense because the whole point of anarchy is to abolish government.

Exactly how does Anarchism only work if it has a political system to "exploit"?

 

Also, the whole point of anarchy isn't to abolish government, it's to abolish hiearchy in general. There is still governance in Anarchy, just not by a hiearchical-strutured institution.

 

you need to understand that no matter what government or lack of government exists, there's always ownership.you can't just make make things disappear. The world is basically just a bunch of objects and people spend their entire lives levying over them. individualism and "true freedom" is completely dependant on the first and most important law of nature; the right to life. After that comes the right to property, but the right to live -in other words, "own yourself" - is something that everyone subscribes to. You say that Anarchists are against domination and objectification, but you wouldn't feel that way unless you valued yourself as an object.

 

I take it you're coming from a Lockean point of view, correct?

 

We have inherient right to ourselves, and thus our labour, and thus the products of our labour. One of the many problems with Lockean philosophy is that labour alone is useless and doesn't produce ANYTHING. Labour is only productive when merged with natural or raw resources, which exist without any labour infested within them. Since the natural resources are without labour, they are essentially unownable going by Lockean theory. The only entity, by default, that can claim ownership over such resources is the collective. Thus, at the root of individual ownership is the acknowledgment that what you possess you possess at the agreement of the collective.

 

the only reason why you suggest that socialism is the only gateway to anarchism is because it's less absurd to think that anarchism can be born out of a society of individuals who earn their product than one that redistributes it's wealth to the undeserving. In other words, the similarity between socialism and anarchism that you've alluded to is nothing more than "I don't wanna work I just want to bang on my drum all day". Both socialism and anarchism demand unearned wealth. That's why hierarchy, capitalism and free markets don't appeal to you.

 

Please, exactly how does one determine who is and isn't worthy of wealth? The Markets? Please. Capitalism has a nature rate of unemployment at all times, no matter how "deserving" or "worthy" that percentage of the workforce is. If you honestly believe that some is undeserving of wealth simply because he's a victim of the market system, I almost pity you.

 

The reason anarchists support socialism is because it's the only way to avoid the hiearchy and wage-slavery of Capitalism, which is by definition, not anarchist. I'm quite willing to put my labour at work and create a product, I actually do it quite often, but I'm unsupportive of having to put my labour at work in a hiearchical-structured workplace where my boss is able to leech of my labour and manipulate me simply because he claimed possesion on raw materials due to force

Anarchism is a lot like communism. It makes a whole lot of sense, but it just doesn't work, which is unfortunate.

 

i've been giving it a lot of thought lately.

 

Makes me want to be a squatter.

It works.

[supercanuk]

Kwas, that was aptly and articulatly put, much more effective then my essay ;) lol

[TheKwas]

Your essay was good, I just wanted to drive some main points home.

[Spritzup]

This whole thread has been quite well written and it's nice to see an intelligent exchange of idea's without resorting to name calling. It's been a good read, congrats.

 

As to idea of socialism, anarchism, capitalism, etc the underlying problems with any of these 'isms is that they fail to take into account the human condition.

[supercanuk]

This whole thread has been quite well written and it's nice to see an intelligent exchange of idea's without resorting to name calling. It's been a good read, congrats.

I second that.

[ecnarf]

by definition anarchists are definitely not socialists. in reality anarchists a lot like jesus; they're either hypocrites or they don't exist. If you "don't believe in rule", what are you doing living in society run by a government or relying on one for survival. if you believe in collective ownership you're jsut a socialist... and a jackass.

 

people get confused with anarchism because the ideology list goes in a circle, not in a straight line.

Collective ownership is more hardline communist than socialist.

 

I'm a socialist, but I still see the need for a free market economy and personal liberties as the basis for a healthy society just as much as proper social programs. While welfare has and is exploited by people who just refuse to work, it is key to helping people who want to work get back on their feet, not to mention a crucial factor in keeping the economy afloat. Once people stop earning money, they stop buying. Ensuring there is a basic standard of living of some sorts keeps them contributing to the economy. Of course, at the same time, there has to be motivation to get a job and safeguards to keep the system from being exploited.

 

Socialism, or at least my understanding of it, definitely isn't collective ownership.

[heyrabbit]

This is my standpoint. I'm an atheist, pragmatist and a realist. The first step in the process of reasoning is to establish axioms whereby you can evolve and revolve your opinions. You need to establish truths and work around that, because ultimately that's all you have to work with if. that's how I work.

 

you've desribed to a utopian anarchist society. i won't bother much with the flaws of idealism, but none of these ideas account for human nature. the gentleman who mention this above hit the nailr ight on the head. that is one of the only conistent things through time and anarchism discounts that.

 

I

[TheKwas]

Men are born with the inherent desire to own the right to control their own actions. children do whatever they want, and weep and whine when they don't get it. They don't come out of the womb wanting to be slaves or collective owners. this is all before they even have a rational faculty. No matter how old we get, this never changes. that's why it's a law of nature and not a law of man. it's the source of all rights.

Fair enough.

 

I don't believe in fate.whether you or I believe in that doesnt make a difference. the fact is that land exists, and people struggle for control over it.

 

And what do you do in any struggle? You try and solve it using rational and not using the "might is right" method.

 

labour produces a product.

 

Labour without a material produces nothing. If I jump up and down for an hour, I'm just really tired. If I jump up and down squishing grapes, I produce wine. Since all material esstentially comes from the earth's resources, we must first address the issue of who owns the resources before we can address who owns the product of those resources.

 

Since the resources simply exist, and there is no labour infused with them, they can't not be owned by any single person in the Lockean sense, as Locke's definition of material property relies on the assumption that labour is fused with a material. The classic Locke arguement is that anyone can use the resources at any time they what and for any purpose, as it's free game until someone's labour is fused with it. I don't think I have to point out the impossiblity of implamenting that in reality. It's not rocket science that not anyone should be able to cut down the rain forest without consulting with anyone else.

 

So what other options are there? How about collective ownership? Since no individual group can make legit claim to it, the collective is the only other group that can by default. How the collective decides to manage these resources, is of course, up to the collective. Whether they want to directly control these resources via socialism or grant private companies the ability to control the resources on the behalf of the collective.

 

But since the resources are ultimately the property of everyone, any work of labour you do with that material you do with permission of the collective, meaning that employers do have responsiblities and you're ownership of anything isn't "absolute". You do not have the right to do whatever you like with your possesions.

 

hierarchy is a good thing. there's a reason why parents look after children and not the other way around.

Legit hierarchy can be a good thing, unneeded hierarchy is a bad thing.

[garsk]

I am center right, so in this debate i kinda feel like i am the far right. ah well, i rather enjoyed reading this page.

[supercanuk]

Anarchism is a response to the current conditions; no other ideology either puts into account the human condition. Marxism was a result of labour and industry, democratic thought like John Stuart Mills was a response to the litigious society and the state unwillingness to give us liberty, none of it addressed the human condition, so the presupposition that any one of these ideaolgies is above another is not accurate. Anarchy again isn

Edited November 28, 2005 by supercanuk

[heyrabbit]

And what do you do in any struggle? You try and solve it using rational and not using the "might is right" method.

yeah, but human behavior is predominantly irrational. a collective opinion in that scale is unrealistic.

 

Since all material esstentially comes from the earth's resources, we must first address the issue of who owns the resources before we can address who owns the product of those resources.

 

Since resources simply exist, as you said yourself, there are no definitive owners. suggesting that people should be given resources, or that we should all just agree to be equal is impractical, unfair and communistic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you meant when you said that we need to "decide who owns resources".

 

we're talking about wealth here. labour without resources produces nothing, technically, but that's irrelevant and it's sort of a loaded statement. the world is made of resources. so you weren't born on a diamond mine, that's life.

 

Since no individual group can make legit claim to it, the collective is the only other group that can by default.

the collective is nothing more than a group of individuals, so I don't see how it's any more or less legit.

 

nobody has the unearned right to resources but that doesn't matter because wealth can be earned. everyone has the ability to control their own actions.you can choose to sell one drink from one lemon and build a capital. that's the beauty of capitalism. Everyone has access to resources no matter how simple they are. people hold intermittent ownership over resources, and wealth is determined by the value cultures place on productivity. that's how it works and that's how it will always be. whether you rob a bank or inherit millions, it's irrelevant to the fact that all wealth has to be earned and can be earned by everyone. It's more easy for some than others, and that's not fair. life has never been fair. the moral principle that I support is not that everyone should be given equal wealth, it's that you should be allowed to keep your wealth once you've earned it.

 

How can we begin to decide what type of society is a more just or equitable or whichever virtues we hold most important one if we are tainted by our own Eurocentric bias?

everyones opinions are influenced by their personal experience and culture, that's what makes them different. everyone's moral judgement is different, that's why we're all debating.

Edited December 10, 2005 by heyrabbit

[TheKwas]

And what do you do in any struggle? You try and solve it using rational and not using the "might is right" method.

yeah, but human behavior is predominantly irrational. a collective opinion in that scale is unrealistic.

Well shit, I guess democracy is a failure as well...

 

Since resources simply exist, as you said yourself, there are no definitive owners. suggesting that people should be given resources, or that we should all just agree to be equal is impractical, unfair and communistic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you meant when you said that we need to "decide who owns resources".

 

I was actually saying that the people should be able to decide what is done with the resources and how they should be allocated. If they choose to straight up share them equally, so be it.

 

the collective is nothing more than a group of individuals, so I don't see how it's any more or less legit.

 

It's more legit because everyone has an equal say. An election isn't legit if only 20% of the populace are allowed to vote. If there's two guys walking down a street and they both come arcoss two 5 dollar bills at the same time and pick them up at the same time, you don't advocate having one guy punch the other in the face and running off with both bills. You try and talk it out and come to a mutual agreement of what to do with the bills. They can split the money 50/50, or whatever they decide.

 

nobody has the unearned right to resources but that doesn't matter because wealth can be earned. everyone has the ability to control their own actions.you can choose to sell one drink from one lemon and build a capital. that's the beauty of capitalism. Everyone has access to resources no matter how simple they are. people hold intermittent ownership over resources, and wealth is determined by the value cultures place on productivity. that's how it works and that's how it will always be. whether you rob a bank or inherit millions, it's irrelevant to the fact that all wealth has to be earned and can be earned by everyone. It's more easy for some than others, and that's not fair. life has never been fair. the moral principle that I support is not that everyone should be given equal wealth, it's that you should be allowed to keep your wealth once you've earned it.

 

Wealth can't even exist without resources... how exactly does one "earn" the earth's natural resources? That's the question I've been asking from the start. How exactly does the Bay company hold any legit ownership when their property rights were granted by a power that didn't have any legit claim other the resources in question anyway?

 

How do you think resource ownership should be decided?

[Monochrome Rainbow]

Economic Left/Right: -4.25

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.25

[josiegross]

Economic Left/Right: -7.38

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56

 

 

i actually got pretty riled up reading some of those questions...

[Azalroth]

apparently I'm Left/Libertarian.... -3.5 and -3.03

Edited February 13, 2006 by Azalroth

[heyrabbit]

How do you think resource ownership should be decided?

Who's making the decision? people make those decisions. And since the entire earths populus will never agree on anything, there will always be a power struggle. that's the way it's always been and that's the way it has to be. that's assuming of course that there's no omnipotent ruler of the earth who can decide for everyone. you could argue about what is morally right and wrong, but then the question would be , according to who's morals and who's opinions?

[Azalroth]

Good argument, I agree with what your saying. There will never be world peace in my mind becuause there will ALWAYS be someone who opposes someones opinions. I also look at it this way, there always needs to be a balance. With everything good that happens, something bad happens as well. In our society we mainly focuse on whats bad before we see the good in any situations. Only in extreme cases there is absolutely no GOOD in a situation, my view on most things is "It can always be worse".

 

This is a good debate, enjoyed the read

[danson]

amazing how i, and 30 other people on this board all got the same thing...

[Ravenous Yam]

I'll bet if you went to rural Alabama it'd be the exact opposite.

[Guest jsunC]

Economic Left/Right -1.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -2.67

 

Guess im less liberal than i thought i was

[PsychoLamb]

Economic Left/Right: -6.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44

[Bizud]

If Heyrabbit is still around and willing to continue the debate:

 

You say that capitalism rewards productivity and you're right. Did it occur to you that we might not want to reward productivity? Productivity requires consumption - rewarding productivity encourages consumption. Given the Earth has finite resources and finite dumping space, an ever-growing economy will one day make the planet uninhabitable - that is a mathematical fact.