CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Anarchismn
Last week I met an anarchist and hard a really really hard time to not laugh into his face (wich I failed to do eventually) I doubt many people still support anarchism but I wonder what are the gratest flaws and qualities you can find to it.
Anarchism goes against human nature by saying there isnt/ shouldnt be any order in society when the smallest cell of society: family has a natural hierarchy: father then mother then children starting by the eldest
In my humble 100% factual view, Anarchy is no better than anything else, and no worse, because what really matters is the level of information and resources people have access to and how the culture programs their impressionable neuroplastic homo sapien monkey brains. You can have a highly structured yet tyrannical society like North Korea, you can have a loosely structured society but one with abundant resources and a culture of freedom and open intellectual discourse.
Ultimately though, the more advanced society becomes, the less we will rely on social constructs and "natural hierarchy" because at a certain point the majority of people will have to NOT be retarded like they are now, because if we continue to have a majority of imbeciles they will drag the human race to extinction. And it is the very fact that most people are imbeciles which necessitates the existence of authority, similar to how you no longer need your parents when you finally become an adult the human race will learn to organize and co-operate without these institutions.
I think I understand what you mean but such a society is impossible because it needs everyone to be perfect. You talk about how things could change if the majority was not stupid but in the same way that 1% of people rule the world, it only takes 1% of idiots to destroy the most utopian civilisation
Ultimately though, the more advanced society becomes, the less we will rely on social constructs and "natural hierarchy" because at a certain point the majority of people will have to NOT be retarded like they are now, because if we continue to have a majority of imbeciles they will drag the human race to extinction. And it is the very fact that most people are imbeciles which necessitates the existence of authority, similar to how you no longer need your parents when you finally become an adult the human race will learn to organize and co-operate without these institutions.
I partially agree with this (which is why I up-voted you). However, I am skeptical of your claim (depending upon precisely what you mean by it):
" ...because at a certain point the majority of people will have to NOT be retarded like they are now, because if we continue to have a majority of imbeciles they will drag the human race to extinction."
Note, this statement could be interpreted in various ways (I will list the two most important as I see it):
A. People will become independent, deep/critical thinkers en masse
B. A 100th Monkey Effect will occur, and even people who are not deep/critical thinkers will become much more educated and intelligent as compared to previous standards due to the shift in the zeitgeist (although, fundamentally remaining the same, just with a higher "base" to stand on)
Now, from my reading of your position, you fall much more in line with (A). I think this, (A), is highly doubtful nearing the point of Utopianism while (B) is very plausible (e.g. think Star Trek) if we are in fact going to survive (i.e. I fall in line with (B)). I actually recently created a debate titled "The Tide of the Times" where I gave some basic thoughts on this matter (which I would be happy to expand on). If I am correct (that you do agree with (A) much more than (B)--or perhaps don't view them as mutually exclusive?) than I would be interested in debating you on this topic
Can you explain the difference between social order and social ordering?
As humans we all have the same human nature wich dictates a certain order as well as a moral code; by example whatever the country lying, killing and incest are prohibited.
Social ordering describes social objects standing in relationship to one another; the arrangement can be arbitrary. Social order is opposed to social chaos (i.e. anarchy) and reflects deliberate arrangement, order imposed upon the arbitrary.
If we had the same human nature then we would all think and act identically, which we quite obviously don't. And your claim that there are moral universals doesn't withstand scrutiny either. What actually constitutes lying, killing and incest differs from country to country (and even within them), so it's misleading and inaccurate to say that they have the same moral code.
Anarchism stems from a mind preoccupied with power games. Karma games. Whatever you want to call it. It takes godliness as gain rather than contentedness.
I believe that most anarchists are in fact closet fascists who think that anarchy happens to be an environment that they would get ahead in. It's about getting even, fundamentally.
Maybe anarchy is a state of mind? You know, a recognizing of no other authority than God. In that sense, I believe, and only in that sense, can anarchy work. Then, instead of seeing anarchy as something to be obtained, you see anarchy as being the natural state of things. At that point, governments become no more than institutions or corporations with such effective public relations and marketing that they've convinced everyone that they have to buy their product.
Yeah, that's the only anarchism that makes sense to me.
University anarchists fight for the people they think they are fighting against. University students make good guinea pigs for witch doctors, shaman, warlocks, wizards, sorcerers, mad scientists, practical jokers, agents of chaos, and the like.
Why, look at me. I'm the Tzar. I'm a good emperor though, anarcho-monarchist, no threatenin with a fist.
The concept that anarchy is a viable (lack of) system for humans is just utterly laughable to me. Any country that fell into anarchy would be so utterly vulnerable to anyone wanting to take advantage of the people (there wouldn't be much else left) that they could simply walk in and take it, with a little organization.
Anarchy is just a great way to find the next dictator.
I think it is exactly what happened to an eastern european country (maybe eukraine? I dont remember), the anarchist "regime" lasted for a very short amount of time before being invaded by the soviets.
That's true of some forms of anarchy, but not all forms of anarchy necessarily advocate the destruction of the state. Individualist anarchy, for instance, is more a philosophy for personal action than it is a foundation for resisting and destroying government.
Individualism does not require social isolation. It is a practice not of categorical destruction of the other, but of categorical preferencing of the self above the other. Social order is stripped of the illusions of legitimacy and intrinsic value which bind individuals to its service, instead situating social ordering as a means to securing the individual's interests to themself. Where the social order serves the individual they will tolerate it, but where it does not they resist. This is individualist anarchy: it does not recognize the legitimacy of the state over the individual, but neither does it recognize the call of errant "anarchist" idealism on the individual to overthrow the state.
Not trying to be evasive, but it really would depend upon the individualist anarchist, their interests, and their relative social position of power.
Generally speaking, though, I'd say they would abide the traffic stop or respect property rights only insofar as they lacked the social capital (power) to do otherwise or had a greater interest in breaching those practices/laws than in avoiding consequences for which they lack the power to be free from. Obedience in such case is a consequence not of reverence but of practical consideration. Behavior motivated by something other than reverence to the law that nevertheless corresponds with what the law dictates would also be fine (e.g. not stealing from people for some reason not motivated by the law).
There are different forms of anarchy, some of them more or less defensible than others. Anarchy that advocates the abolition of the state strikes me as a case of the latter; it isn't self-sustaining. Anarchy in an individualist form is more plausible, imo.
When you speak of anarchy on its own you should use the term anarchy. The term 'anarchism' is used to go into sub sets of anarchy.
The need for written law and government is an invented need. If everyone was a cop and if everyone had the power of NSA to spy on one another, this would be the perfect anarchy in my opinion.
When written law and government is done away with, what do you still have?
God is sovereign over all things. The nations are as a drop in the bucket, counted as dust on the balance. They are vanity. They are nothing.
Not only is getting rid of written law and government impossible, but it isn't desirable.
The way to reconcile the inevitability of institution and anarchy is to look at anarchy as the way things actually are rather than something to strive for or obtain.
It is the difference between an anarcho-realist and an anarcho-idealist.
The word "God" is an abstraction. Thoughts are abstractions. We are using a medium to communicate. We can't avoid this. The medium is The Word. This is the mystery of the trinity! Have in you The Spirit of Truth.
If you understand what "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" means, the essence behind that.. It should become clear that we are talking about an entity that is transcendent of the means we use to express it.
I am talking about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. Understand what that means, and realize that it is not just an arbitrary string of meaningless words.
