CreateDebate


Debate Info

7
17
Nonsense Good things about it
Debate Score:24
Arguments:41
Total Votes:26
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Nonsense (6)
 
 Good things about it (13)

Debate Creator

cruzaders(341) pic



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.

Nonsense

Side Score: 7
VS.

Good things about it

Side Score: 17
2 points

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

Side: Nonsense
FactMachine(432) Disputed
3 points

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.

Side: Good things about it
cruzaders(341) Clarified
1 point

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

Side: Nonsense
xMathFanx(1742) Clarified
1 point

@FactMachine

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

Side: Nonsense
Jace(4706) Disputed
1 point

Social ordering isn't the same thing as social order, and what makes you believe there's a singular natural order anyways?

Side: Good things about it
cruzaders(341) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: Nonsense
1 point

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.

Voluntary tax.

Side: Nonsense
1 point

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.

Side: Nonsense
1 point

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.

Side: Nonsense
Jace(4706) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: Good things about it
cruzaders(341) Clarified
1 point

How can anarchy be individualist? I though narchy meant "resisting to order" an order you cant have if you are alone.

Side: Nonsense
2 points

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.

Side: Good things about it
Sitar(3682) Clarified
1 point

What school do you follow?.........................................................................................................

Side: Nonsense
Jace(4706) Clarified
1 point

I practice individualist anarchy.

Side: Nonsense

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.

Side: Good things about it
TzarPepe(793) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: Nonsense
0 points

God almighty can suck this beautiful penis of mine that he created in his image.

Side: Good things about it