CreateDebate


Debate Info

5
11
Yeah, pretty much I don't think so, here's why
Debate Score:16
Arguments:14
Total Votes:17
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yeah, pretty much (5)
 
 I don't think so, here's why (9)

Debate Creator

Kitk34(185) pic



This is what Anarchy Is not

There are many misperceptions on what "anarchy" actually is.  The original meaning of the word means "without ruler(s)."  But through many centuries it has taken many different meanings.  Those who claim to be anarchist today are more in line with the original meaning.  The video presented here explains and shows what "Anarchy" is not.  I ask that the video be viewed in full before any arguments for or against are posted; it is about twenty minutes.  Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMoPBDz5ycA  

 

Yeah, pretty much

Side Score: 5
VS.

I don't think so, here's why

Side Score: 11
1 point

I am not sure why the link is all that has shown up so I have post the same link here.

What Anarchy isn't
Side: Yeah, pretty much
2 points

Anarchists are supposedly opposed to any and all forms of governments. I watched her video, and her logic assumes that if societal organizations are more purely based on voluntarism, that this by definition makes these organizations "not governments". This is of course not true, they are just different styles of government.

Side: I don't think so, here's why
Kitk34(185) Disputed
1 point

Anarchists are supposedly opposed to any and all forms of governments. The logic assumes that if societal organizations are more purely based on voluntarism, that this by definition makes these organizations "not governments". This is of course not true, they are just different styles of government.

It is true if such organizations have no way to force anything upon anyone else.

What is a "government" without a perceived "authority"(a ruling class)? What is your definition of a "government"?

Side: Yeah, pretty much
atypican(4874) Disputed
1 point

It is true if such organizations have no way to force anything upon anyone else.

How could an organization possibly be formed that has "no way to force anything upon anyone else"?

What is a "government" without a perceived "authority"(a ruling class)?

A government that still has one.

What is your definition of a "government"?

Governments are those who make the rules. Suppose myself and a bunch of radicals take up seasteading and no one is allowed to join our new country except those who are party to our citizenship agreement, which states the only consequence for violation of said agreement is exile. Would you maintain that the instant we enforce the agreement by kicking someone out, we become a government by virtue of enforcing the will of the ruling class?

Side: I don't think so, here's why

This video supports my previous notions that Anarchy is based primarily on straw men.

Point 1: Straw man. The video is overly simplistic (perhaps the reason it’s a cartoon). It acts as though the choices are totalitarianism or anarchy. In the video, governments make people do things; this is not the proper role of government nor is it the common mode of our current government. Occurrences of this are an anomaly. Cases of the US government legally forcing action are less common than government restraining wrong action and can be fought against within the system.

Like every Anarchy promotion I have ever seen, this portrays laws as inherently unjust (this is another straw man). While there are and have been unjust laws in US history, the majority of laws are simple restrictions that need enforcement. The fact that we hire people to manage these laws on a regular basis so that we can go about our business is not proof of legal thugery.

Point 2: The tax system is a problem, but it need not be. Pointing to the problem of taxes as reason to shrug off the entire system of government does not follow.

Point 3: Everyone is armed. This does not mean that criminals will do worse. In some inner cities where police won’t go, you have thug rule. The only time they are stopped is when another gang usurps. This is and has been true in various countries in Africa and throughout the dark ages as well. Organized crime gangs exist along with government, but historically have been worse where there is none.

Point 3: Everyone wants to get along. As proof the video directs me inward to examine my own motivations. This self-examination does not explain why Somali, Congo, or Rwandan tribes have slaughtered each other without any government help.

Final Point: The idea that people can work together all on their own is exactly where actual government came from. The fact that anyone can run for office, become a judge, or become a police officer, shows that this is not a class, but a position one holds and can also loose.

Side: I don't think so, here's why

If this is the "Voluntaryist" view, then violence follows.

If one holds the views presented in this video, then it is appropriate for them to take violent action against government officials or government buildings. The claim would be self defense against a band of thugs. It would not be an initiation of force, but defense against the initiation.

This is why anarchists have been prone to these actions in the past, no?

Side: I don't think so, here's why
Kitk34(185) Disputed
1 point

If this is the "Voluntaryist" view, then violence follows.

If one holds the views presented in this video, then it is appropriate for them to take violent action against government officials or government buildings. The claim would be self defense against a band of thugs. It would not be an initiation of force, but defense against the initiation.

So, now if someone takes this view, you are implying that they somehow advocate violence? That sounds like a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.

The “Voluntaryist” view is grounded in the non-aggression principle (that is that one is wrong to aggress against another or the initiation of violence). If you listened to what the person said in the video, they were suggesting that people can and do live their daily lives without aggressing against their neighbor(s). A person holding this view would not take “violent action” against anyone, but they might ignore and/or disobey orders from the perceived “authority” figure and that would likely be who initiates violence.

This is why anarchists have been prone to these actions in the past, no?

No, many “anarchists” in the past made the mistake of buying into the “authority myth” and this led to the failure in attempts to “establish an anarchic society" because they believed that there was something that needed to be overthrown.

The main difference between what was presented in the video and “anarchists” of the past is that “authority”(a claim of a certain group of Individual human beings to be able to rule over other human beings) is a myth; as in it does not exist.

Side: Yeah, pretty much
1 point

The “Voluntaryist” view is grounded in the non-aggression principle

Right, but not Pacifism. Rather than viewing a government authority that needs to be toppled, an anarchist would view the so called government as a band of thugs with no real authority. Violence against this band of thugs would be considered self defense. Especially if on already had a run in with the law. An anarchist need not make the mistake of believing a myth in order to perceive violence against the government as self defense.

This doesn't mean that all who hold this view advocate violence, it means the the anarchist view leaves "self defense" as a viable reason to act against what the rest of us call government.

A person holding this view would not take “violent action” against anyone, but they might ignore and/or disobey orders from the perceived “authority” figure and that would likely be who initiates violence.

What happens next? Self defense or pacifism?

"I have every right to cook meth for my clients and your telling me not to! You show up with guns to try to stop me from exercising my rights? Well, you're not an authority, but I give up."...Not likely.

Side: I don't think so, here's why
0 points

I didn't watch the video because you can't govern what prerequisites are stipulated for my responses to this debate topic.

Also PUNK ROCK BITCHES!!

Side: I don't think so, here's why
Kitk34(185) Disputed
1 point

I didn't watch the video because you can't govern what prerequisites are stipulated for my responses to this debate topic.

Also PUNK ROCK BITCHES!!

I created this debate so I can stipulate certain things, but I can not force you or anyone to watch the video. I asked that it be viewed for the purposes of this debate. You obviously do not care. If you have anything of worthwhile to add please do so.

Side: Yeah, pretty much
sauh(1106) Disputed
1 point

Do you get my bit, that it was a debate about the definition of anarchy and you made mention of a governing body (a situation where someone can stupilate rules and others have to follow them) and I made a point of disregarding your prerequisites for posting a response?

It is fairly simple / obvious sarcasm.

Also PUNK ROCK BITCHES!!

(That last bit was just for fun).

Side: I don't think so, here's why