CreateDebate


Debate Info

15
32
score of 0 score of 1-25
Debate Score:47
Arguments:47
Total Votes:47
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 score of 0 (15)
 
 score of 1-25 (22)

Debate Creator

Kitk34(185) pic



Anarchy is not chaos

The term simply means "absence of government".  Most folks, no matter where they see themselves on the political spectrum, do not see themselves or the position they hold as being wrong.  In fact, the reason people vote is because they believe their candidate will do things they think should be done, not thinking that they are forcing the other guy to pay or support such things they may find morally wrong; and that other guy does the same things.

Here is a political quiz of a different sort.  Instead of placing from left to right; liberal, conservative, or libertarian, it goes from one extreme to the other and scores on degrees.  So, on the extreme Right would be Anarchy and the extreme Left would be Authoritarian.  If you are up to it, take the quiz then post your score and defend your position.  On the same site it explains each question.

Here is the link:

http://nogov4me.net/

score of 0

Side Score: 15
VS.

score of 1-25

Side Score: 32
1 point

I took this a couple of years ago and it showed a score of 1-3. I took it again, today in fact and I am now at 0. There is a second window that opens when you click on the "show results link." Can anyone explain the answers they gave and why those are correct or true?

Supporting Evidence: Score results (nogov4me.net)
Side: score of 0
JackneySneeb(1) Clarified
2 points

I didn't write the quiz to prove one side right or wrong; the statements are based on the opinions of those I call statists, i.e., who advocate having a government for whatever reason. On the "answer" page I try to explain why those opinions are logically flawed, e.g., in statement #1 "If you don't vote you can't complain," I show that not only is it false for more than one reason), it is an example of public school indoctrination of pro-state slogans designed to prevent rational thought and shut down opposing arguments. All emotion-based slogans ("You're a racist!" is a prime example) are meant to shut down debate, and stifle any challenge to the status quo.

I don't grade the quiz on right-vs-wrong answers. The statements are all taken from things statists have said, things they truly believe. Agreeing with them doesn't make one wrong necessarily, it just means he is likely an advocate for government. No advocate for government ought to feel insulted by scoring many True responses - just as no anarchist ought to feel insulted by being called unpatriotic - patriotism is in fact a meme supporting the belief in government. It is no insult for one who doesn't believe in government to be called unpatriotic. Likewise, it should not bother anyone who advocates a government that uses force to ensure compliance with its commands to be called an authoritarian.

--Jackney Sneeb

Side: score of 0
Stryker(849) Disputed
1 point

Sure. I think that taxes are the price of civilization. Living in a society grants benefits that are worth paying for. Taxes serve to guaranty each member contributes to their society, they are benefiting from the taxes of those before them and it would be stealing not to contribute in the form their society has decided.

I'm not making any claims as to my views on any tax system, only that taxes are the price of civilization.

Side: score of 1-25
Kitk34(185) Disputed
1 point

Sure. I think that taxes are the price of civilization.

First off, thank-you for taking the challenge on presenting your case; and that is to any others who do so as well.

I am not sure how civilized extorting money or property from people is civilized.

Living in a society grants benefits that are worth paying for.

There might be many benefits to living among a certain amount of fellow human-beings, sure, but if I am forcibly robbed on a regular basis, it kind of cheapens any sort of value I initially placed on living with them. This is not saying that myself and a certain amount of people get together and agree to pool our money to pay for certain things; this is by consent.

Taxes serve to guaranty each member contributes to their society,

An Individual can contribute or not and it would be wise to others in a given society to not chase people away because then, their society dissolves; without Individual human-beings voluntarily, of their own free-will consenting to organize into a society, it cannot exist. 'Society' is a non-entity, as is 'government'; neither of which have any sort of ability to act.

they are benefiting from the taxes of those before them and it would be stealing not to contribute in the form their society has decided.

So, I say to you, "Give me money or I will hurt you." Do I have a right to do this? If I get a group of five men together and tell you that you must give us money to contribute to your protection from us hurting you, this is okay or right to do? Correct me if I am wrong, but I am guessing your answer would be no, no one has the right to do such a thing; even if I called it something nice it does not change what it is. Society does not decide any thing. I ask you who is stealing from who?

Side: score of 0
Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

Thanks to everyone who takes the time to answer the questions.

Side: score of 0
1 point

The point was to debate the reasons given as to why "we need government" and if a person takes the test, they do not need to get offended if they think their position is right. Argue it, if a person does not have a problem with it.

Here, I will paste question 4:

"People need to be controlled, lest they run amok."

So who agreed with this and why?

Side: score of 0
5 points

Scored 4 allegedly that makes me an Authoritarian, load of old bollocks if you ask me. Whoever created this quiz sounds like one of those "anarchists" who is so desperate to be the best anarchist ever they never get anything done

Side: score of 1-25
Nebeling(1118) Clarified
1 point

I got exactly the same. Authoritarian worshippers unite...

Side: score of 0
Kitk34(185) Disputed
1 point

Scored 4 allegedly that makes me an Authoritarian, load of old bollocks if you ask me. Whoever created this quiz sounds like one of those "anarchists" who is so desperate to be the best anarchist ever they never get anything done

Actually, the name he used as a pseudonym was Jackney Sneeb. He was career Army, helicopter pilot in Vietnam and for thirty years held the Libertarian view. He did not become an "anarchist" over night, but in the interest of being consistent in his own head and honest with himself he took a hard look at what he supported politically.

I was wondering if you read through the link that showed the results? He points out what his questions were based on and argued as to why they were/are wrong. Did you look at your answers that you gave as true and see if anything he said concerning them were true or accurate as to your own position?

Perhaps, what most people need to do is take a look at themselves in this way. Maybe, the first thing that needs to happen is to change something in their own head. I went through and still deal with it today and it seems like people are so set on pointing to what others are doing. Or they think that someone else should do something. Do you ever notice nothing ever really changes?

Supporting Evidence: Results explained (nogov4me.net)
Side: score of 0
TheAshman(2299) Disputed
1 point

I read through the link some of it I agree with some I don't and changing my answers on an online test won't change me, I agree everyone should take a long hard look at themselves and try and fix what's wrong, I do most days and have done for years, your bit about "people are set at pointing out what's wrong with other people" a bit like this test, score zero or your not as good an anarchist as me!! This is the sort of rubbish I was debating with schoolboy anarchists 20 years ago, only one of them was the real thing and he was the one that wasn't the noisiest about his views.

Maybe this guy is the real deal but too many fakes have been spouting all this kinda stuff for years it makes him sound like just another snake oil salesman.

Side: score of 1-25

I got a 14, which says "You're a state-worshipping authoritarian; you probably vote Democrat or Republican along strict party lines" which could not be any less true. I am actually strongly against voting solely based on the political parties. Based on that, i question the validity of this survey.

Side: score of 1-25
Kitk34(185) Disputed
1 point

I got a 14, which says "You're a state-worshipping authoritarian; you probably vote Democrat or Republican along strict party lines" which could not be any less true. I am actually strongly against voting solely based on the political parties. Based on that, i question the validity of this survey.

Okay, fair enough, however, you answered true to 14 of 25 questions and he explains what he based the questions on and why they are wrong; at least he argues that they are. As I wrote to The Ashman, perhaps take a look at your answers and what he argues. Then, at least, dispute him or prove him wrong. This was why I posted the survey; too debate on these claims from both sides. Just because you didn't like the results, does not mean he is wrong.

Supporting Evidence: Results explained (nogov4me.net)
Side: score of 0
1 point

I looked at those "correct answers". There were opinions, not facts.

Side: score of 1-25

Anarchy is based primarily on a straw man fallacy. It always refers to "government" (always in quotations) as if we live in a monarchy or under a dictatorship.

Anarchists act as though you or I can't hold office (we can and do compose our government).

They act as though laws are there to hold us all down, and then they point out only the laws that do. They neglect all of the very important restrictive laws that everyone should abide by.

Cops are always villains for dragging away the harmless pot head, but they are never heroes for dragging away the child rapist (who can figure out right and wrong for himself apparently).

Side: score of 1-25

This debate is supposed to be a discussion of the questionnaire, so here it goes:

I cannot be trusted to figure out right and wrong for myself.

I know I can and so can most people. There are some people who think that what is right, is terribly harmful to others. Some of these people are in government, many of them are not. Many of us are trustworthy, and we can ALL run for office.

People need to be controlled, lest they run amok.

Not controlled, restricted from running amok. Most people wouldn’t, and so this is not an issue. When people “run amok” (riot, murder, steal) it’s correct for them to be restricted by anyone, including the government.

Anarchy means chaos and destruction

No, that’s the result. War is chaos and destruction. Anarchy would bring war.

Taxes are the price we pay for civilization

Yep. But the current tax system is coercive and corrupt. It doesn't need to be.

The police have a right to use lethal force in cases where it would be wrong for others to do so

When carrying out a death sentence for example? Yeah.

The lesser of two evils is better than none at all

This is ridiculous, but in the context of this discussion, it seems to imply that anarchy is no evil at all. It isn't

We shouldn't abolish the state until we have something to replace it with

This is a complex question fallacy. We shouldn't abolish the state at all. If it needs to be changed then so be it.

Politicians are supposed to lie, when it is in the national interest

When bluffing an enemy? Of course.

The government exists to protect the rights of the people

When a government actually ceases to do this, it isn't a government. A corrupt agency does not equal a corrupt system.

We need a government that is strong enough to vanquish all enemies, yet

can't trample on our rights.

If it is that strong, then of course it CAN trample your rights. There are a lot of things that determine whether or not it does.

Side: score of 1-25

14 for me. In the middle, where we should be.

Side: score of 1-25
Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

14 for me. In the middle, where we should be.

Why is that?

Side: score of 0

Because this test is biased - it's designed to label everyone an authoritarian and tell them why they're wrong. I usually test as a libertarian, which I think is around the middle of 0-25 here.

Side: score of 1-25
1 point

12 - What can I say, I like the idea of crushing all my enemies, I find that appealing when choosing a society.

Side: score of 1-25

10

Anarchy, the absence of government, is not chaos, absence of order. Though the two are closely linked because people usually can not handle anarchy thus causing chaos, they are not inherently bonded together.

Chaos can be caused by any number of things, even existing under a government.

Just as an anarchic society, can be one where the people just live in harmony with each other without a need to fight, or govern each other.

Side: score of 1-25
1 point

The anarchic society that lives peacefully is either a small commune or a Utopian pipe dream.

Side: score of 0
Kitk34(185) Disputed
1 point

The anarchic society that lives peacefully is either a small commune or a Utopian pipe dream.

That is not accurate because while such a society might be a small commune and they have been/are tried, that does not mean all people who choose to live without a ruling class (authority) will live in a commune.

As for "a Utopian pipe dream," this gets parroted and tossed around so much that it is doubtful if any who do so knows what they are talking about.

I guess if I decide to not agress against my neighbor because that seems wrong and evil, then I must living such a "Utopian pipe dream." No, the belief in "authority" seems more in line with such wishful thinking and dreaming.

Side: score of 0

I think I took it once for fun, but I'm not interested in seriously taking a loaded test. Anarchy is not chaos. It's a thousand little totalitarians fighting each other.

Side: score of 1-25
Kitk34(185) Disputed
1 point

I think I took it once for fun, but I'm not interested in seriously taking a loaded test.

Then, what, calling themselves government?

I do not think it is loaded if he gives an explanation to each question that was asked. Also, the questions stem from various arguments that he came across when debating "Government".

Anarchy is not chaos. It's a thousand little totalitarians fighting each other.

Oh, so the solution is to put them into office huh? And I guess no one can use their own judgment to decide for what right and wrong are?

Basically, any sort of scary scenario of chaos, mayhem and disorder, happens now and the worst offenders operate overtly calling themselves 'government' and telling everyone what to do. So, what is the difference?

Side: score of 0
2 points

I do not think it is loaded if he gives an explanation to each question that was asked

If the test goes step by step to explain why you are wrong to not be an Anarchist, then it is loaded. But I will retake it to be sure.

Oh, so the solution is to put them into office huh? And I guess no one can use their own judgment to decide for what right and wrong are?

You seem to have taken a few things I said and ran off with a number of assumptions. Most people can decide, some people can't.

the worst offenders operate overtly calling themselves 'government'... So, what is the difference?

If you don't see a difference, then does scoring 0 and being an Anarchist means you like things just the way they are?

I'll look at the test, but here is a counter challenge. Come up with any society that was big and prosperous enough to make a blip in history that was Anarchic.

Side: score of 1-25
1 point

6

Side: score of 1-25
1 point

Almost every question on that list has manipulative phrasing, so that you can't agree nor disagree... for instance the one like:

"Without government, there'd be no roads."

Do you mean EVER? Or just for America? Are you suggesting that free enterprise would eventually made roads?

Could you imagine?!:

Man I got to go to work, and the Burger King Highway West is the only good way there, but I cant find my BK pass!

Side: score of 1-25
1 point

All the good roads through history have been built by government, Britain was an anarchic society and yes there were some roads but they were shit until the Romans came along and sorted a whole bunch of new roads that were better. Government make better roads history teaches us this.

Side: score of 1-25
Kitk34(185) Disputed
1 point

To The Ashman:

Any roads that were built were done by people getting together and designing and building them. Those people refered to as government or authority interfere with such action.

The Romans fought with the tribes living in Britain at that time. Building any roads were more for military movement. I doubt those tribes had much use.

Im sure those tribal people had travel paths they used themselves. So, this does not show any sort proof that Government built roads.

Side: score of 0
Kitk34(185) Disputed
1 point

To Akulakhan:

First, I didn't write it. As I pointed out already these statements are common excuses given to convince the author of the existence of "government". So, it is asked as true or false; he gave his reasoning on why he says false. If you say they are true, then you can say here and give your reasoning for your position.

Tell me how you answer this question, "Who will build the roads?"

It seems obvious to me; people do. Yet, often a non-entity called "goverment" is given as the builders of roads. It is absurd.

Can you define what government is, within this criteria a) to distinguish it from everything else and b) explain to me without sounding insane?

As for finding your BK pass example, it implies that BK is a government to you. Is this correct?

Side: score of 0
Akulakhan(2985) Disputed
2 points

As I pointed out already these statements are common excuses given to convince the author of the existence of "government

Government does exist.

-

Tell me how you answer this question, "Who will build the roads?"

It seems obvious to me; people do. Yet, often a non-entity called "gover[n]ment" is given as the builders of roads. It is absurd.

The government is comprised of people, people whom might then go and build roads, or provide the funding. "Government" isn't some mysterious ambiguous entity looming over a nation.

-

Can you define what government is, within this criteria a) to distinguish it from everything else and b) explain to me without sounding insane?

It is the collaboration of people to protect, provide, communicate within, or otherwise represent, itself; by means of any number of organized processes, i.e. programs and elective offices etc...

-

As for finding your BK pass example, it implies that BK is a government to you. Is this correct?

No, I'm pointing out how the quiz strongly implies that free markets are as, if not more, successful at providing the services that governments already do; evidence by the way they beg the question "Who can build roads?" It's an intolerably slanted quiz staggered with broad questions to which one is suppose to give astoundingly undermined binaric answers; the result of which is an even more so absolutist binaric conclusion, that there is only EXTREME AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT or free will.

Side: score of 1-25