Is Anarchism a valuable political ideology?
Yes
Side Score: 18
|
 |
No
Side Score: 16
|
|
|
|
|
Anarchism is essentially a fight for human freedom. Modern states, even those which claim to be democracies, stifle their citizens with oppressive and artificial machinery such as laws and taxes. These are imposed by the people who run the state - the elites, the governing classes. Anarchists believe it is better to live without such controls imposed by such people. As it is in human nature to be free. Side: yes
It is no living organisms nature to be free. We are no exclusion. The only thing that frees us from a reality of consistent life and death, survival of the fittest enslavement is order. Were there anarchy, there'd be no time to ponder these principles on a computer anyhow. Side: No
Perhaps it could work someday. Before the United States, a lot of people thought the only way to go was monarchy/dictatorship. They figured that the Greeks and Romans didn't last long and, thus, the idea of democracy and the republic would never work for an extended period of time. However, with advances in political science, democracy and the republic became possible. I believe that humane, civilized anarchy will be, perhaps, possible someday. However, today, I don't think it would work out. Side: yes
2
points
Anarchy is the closest thing we will ever come to the actual order of the world. Nature in itself is run by survival of the fittest no matter what corner of the world you go to. Why should we consider ourselves above anything else in the universe? What makes us so much better? Government is just a legalized form of slavery. Anarchy, in itself, solves all problems. Side: yes
Anarchy is important in the balance of the political stream in both a theoretical and realistic sense. It is the absolute end of the Freedom part of the Political Spectrum, providing an absolute end. Simultaneously, it helps to point out potential flaws in our thinking and our applications of laws, philosophies and ideals. Without it, The Elite would completely control the minds of the World, as no relative negative exists to pull people away from the Elitist view. Anarchy also empowers the average man to be his own, whereas Elitism essentially either guarantees the worthlessness of that man or that he futilely try to be more like the Elite and forever fail. This is truly the only real benefit of Anarchy, and in general it need remain a more abstract, intangible item than applied ideology due to its direct violation of established human rights through its upholding of primal instinct and destruction of social barriers. Anyone who engages in any form of Anarchy is a fool. Side: yes
1
point
Yes, of course! Anarchism is a ideology that defends the rights, freedom, justice, is also against inequality and does not destroy nature. Most people think that anarchism is a disorder and use the word anarchy to refer disorder. But if anarchism is disorder, then how is that a part of Ukraine has come to be dominated by guerrillas, anarchists? It's not bullshit! The party Spanish CNT created own economy at the time of the Spanish Civil War. People who do not have wisdom, it is obvious that you are against anarchism. Side: Yes
|
Anarchism is marked by a utopian, unrealistic argument - a diatribe based on the principle that the grass is always greener on the other side. Far from freeing humans, anarchy allow them to be dominated by primitive forces that a controlling state has eliminated, such as the use of physical force by the strong to oppress the weak. Laws and a police force are necessary to prevent this. A state allows industries to be organized and crops to be grown so as to support its citizens, and without these high-intensity techniques there is no way that all the population could be fed. All advances in art and science have been made possible by a state that brings people and resources together. Anarchism is merely a backward and dreamy approach to serious political matters. Side: No
I am only a mere 18, and when I started on this site I was roughly late 15; I have re read several of my arguments and they greatly embarrass me.... Perseverance does pay off indefinitely, I am currently actually going to State finals within bio-medical debate as my team and I won 1st in districts and regionals. However since my recent return to this site I feel that my posts have definitely gone up a few levels in coherency. I also hold a broader knowledge base for different concepts including political ideologies. This post deserves no credit to me and was used to kick the debate off as is the opposing post on the affirmative side, I choose to defend which post my opinion resides on which is in fact that Anarchism is not a valuable political ideology. Anarchism is an ideology which holds onto ideals which if given the opportunity to flourish would merely turn into a dystopian society. Where people find themselves starving to death without an adequate supply of food, resorting to thievery and murder as a mode of survival. As a society which removes the state in its entirety leads people to resort to their primitive states: where physical dominance decides who eats at the end of the day. I don't know if that is any good, however I am on three hours of sleep currently. far the most logical argument I've seen you make That depresses me =\ Side: No
1
point
This intrigued me enough while I was waiting on a program to load up that I decided to sacrifice some sleep time in between classes to reply. Is the controlling state not THE strong one which oppresses the weak? Laws and police force, is the strong no? People organize themselves, not the state. Is the state not an organization that was first organized by people? or was there a infinite retrogression of statehoods organizing everything? Population and food supply are directly related, Unless food supply dramatically drops people will be fed. If the government disappeared tomorrow, there would still be gardens, farms, and hunting grounds. The state can be important in distributing mass amounts of resources by non-profit based criteria, That is mainly due to economy of scale. To say that the state was an integral and necessary part in All scientific advancements is beyond stretching it. Side: yes
Anarchism is a political belief that society should have no government, police, laws or other authority, but should be a free association of all its members. Basically saying that police and politicians should be abolished and we should let the comon people take over. I don't know about you, but I think that that is a TERRIBLE idea! The politicians are doing a bad enough job as it is, and they're TRAINED to do that sort of thing. And without police, you can bet that those 'common people' I was talking about will be criminals and outlaws. In fact, I bet that whoever cme up with anarchism was spending about 20 to life when he came up with this. Anarchists (say) they fight for the freedom of every man. Paddywhack! They fight so they can come into power and leave the rest to die. It's like when someone beats you up, you go kick a dog and the dog goes and bites someone. You don't get more dystopian than that! Side: No
3
points
"Anarchism is a political belief that society should have no government, police, laws or other authority, but should be a free association of all its members." Most of that is true. However, Anarchy doesn't imply an absence of laws. Laws of an Anarchistic society would be determined by the people running it. Side: yes
"Anarchism is a political belief that society should have no government, police, laws or other authority, but should be a free association of all its members." Most of that is true. However, Anarchy doesn't imply an absence of laws. Laws of an Anarchistic society would be determined by the people running it. The definition of anarchy, if I am correct, is no law. Once there is someone running it, creating laws, it is no longer anarchy. I agree with the person you are responding to. I still, however, believe that anarchy could work someday. Side: No
>< It's a lack of politics. It makes as much sense as calling atheism a religious choice. the difference naturally is, while atheism is very possible in the human animal, the human animal is incapable of anarchism. We as advanced as we are or may become, are still slaves to our brain stem which contains instinct. And like all mamals and unlike some species of insect and fish, we instinctually group and feel empathy. In fact to such a degree that when one considers the definition of anarchy, and what it means to be a social creature, imagining a world without this instinct is quite alien. In short anarchists don't understand human behavior and have no idea what anarchy would truly look like - don't bother, the few who can take this step in logical thinking to its core already agree with me. The rest of you are why I only log on after a lot of beer and not getting laid. I'm tired of explaining it, but it is not survival of the fittest, it is black widows (the spider) living and dying alone, eating their young and lovers, and generally being disgusting creatures. As much as I hate spiders, black widows are blameless. Human anarchists though are just fucking silly and dumb. Side: No
0
points
Empathy, hm I wonder if that is not at the core of the anarchist. The anarchist emphasizes with the weak, the broken, the oppressed and to then he wants to give them strength, health, and freedom. Perhaps he shouldn't assume they want the same as him, but empathy tells him otherwise after all Humans are not black widows and if it is in his instinct, his primal instinct; then surely underneath all the layers of indoctrination there is a universal yearning to freely live and associate, with no coercion. Side: yes
You sound like a typical anarchist idiot. For people to do anything from build cool stuff to protect ourselves from wild animals, we need a society. One cannot have a society amidst anarchy. You don't know what anarchy is, like I said. You have some romantic view of a simpler time born of a complete void of knowledge of how shitty most history actually was. There is not a mammal on earth that functions under anarchy from humans to monkeys to aardvarks to prairie dogs. There is a reason. Any mammal which tried to would go extinct. You're not talking about anarchy, you're talking about a commune... ironically. Side: No
|
