CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:68
Arguments:60
Total Votes:74
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 What do you think would evolve from an anarchist society (57)

Debate Creator

steve789(207) pic



What do you think would evolve from an anarchist society

Would there be corperate owned cities (like cities built by construction companies who offer protection as a means of selling homes)? Would there be chaos?Would there be order from people policing themselves? What do you think would evolve from it?

Add New Argument
1 point

Anarchy is only ever a temporary state of affairs, it's chaotic nature makes it unsustainable. Those with power rise to the top to secure their position and ability to impose their will upon others.

Barbarism, or a technocracy. If one reading this seeks the logic behind the claim, feel free to trawl through my previous arguments to find one of the three in which I have previously explained it. [1]

atypican(4875) Disputed
1 point

Don't we already live in a barbaric technocracy ?

1 point

Humans are order seeking, the formation of an anarchist society would be short lived, one could say that some of the policies of the past were in some measure anarchist, they didnt last because it was not a sufficient kind of organization in society. In the early days of the US fire crews were privately owned and one needed to pay for their homes and businesses to be protected.

The main reason why I think we have a mixed system is because of the inherent order seeking tendency of human beings, we tried some pure systems as we evolved as a civilization but have come to the combination we have arrived at because of an order seeking predisposition.

A society more like the one we have now would come into existence over time.

1 point

My belief is that, the people would lack the recources to police themselves, which in the short run would create chaos. But with people being having a lack of security (and public utilities), corperations would build cities and offer protection (and utilities). Because of this, people would move to those cities...creating an effect where cities were owned and policed by single construction companies.

Essentially supply and demand would create order from chaos. But there would be negative aspects as well, the country side would be totally unpoliced and many of the cities would probably lack fair justice systems.

0 points

Anarchy is an impossible human condition. We're social animals. Government is simply what we call the extension of the natural family units, tribes, etc. that humans originally consisted of. The idea government is anything else is dangerously incorrect, as demonstrated by so many currently convinced wrongly it is some outside, evil force instead of a tool that we ourselves are able to determine its use.

However, make-believe world where it would be possible, it would be a very low human population where any advancement would be impossible, medically, scientifically or industrially due to the cooperative nature these things demand. Lifespan would revert to our natural state, mid-thirties for those lucky enough not to contract some horrible disease earlier. All would be raised by single mothers (as family is not anarchy, it is order) for only the time instinct determined meaning a lot of dead children (as well as dead babies), rape and murder would be as likely upon human contact as anything else as the competition for resources, whether rare or plentiful, make this the most logical reaction to another person's presence.

The biggest and strongest males would rule completely in any given situation, until murdered through trickery, luck, in their sleep or when a bigger stronger male in any situation took over. Even these brutal and unfair instances of something resembling order would quickly crumble.

It would be miserable and short.

In reality few creatures on earth practice complete anarchy. Even dumb animals have social standards and pack norms, which are primitive "governments."

atypican(4875) Disputed
4 points

Anarchy is an impossible human condition.

The same sentiment is at the root of the worst sort of theism. That people cannot function in a healthy manner without a master to be subordinate to, or some form of institutionalized hierarchal rule, is the argument of tyrants and slaves. I suppose it does depend on how you are interpreting the word anarchy. If your perspective were to shift to where you viewed anarchy as being synonymous with freedom (like I do) I suppose you'd stop arguing against it.

Government is simply what we call the extension of the natural family units, tribes, etc. that humans originally consisted of. The idea government is anything else is dangerously incorrect, as demonstrated by so many currently convinced wrongly it is some outside, evil force instead of a tool that we ourselves are able to determine its use.

I agree with that.

However, make-believe world where it would be possible, it would be a very low human population where any advancement would be impossible, medically, scientifically or industrially due to the cooperative nature these things demand.

Actually small group interaction proves that anarchic relationships work just fine in the real world. It seems like you are arguing that robust cooperative associations cannot occur in the absence of a ruling class to keep everybody in line. Your claim that advancement would be impossible is based on nothing but your poorly informed hunch.

Lifespan would revert to our natural state, mid-thirties for those lucky enough not to contract some horrible disease earlier. All would be raised by single mothers (as family is not anarchy, it is order) for only the time instinct determined meaning a lot of dead children (as well as dead babies), rape and murder would be as likely upon human contact as anything else as the competition for resources, whether rare or plentiful, make this the most logical reaction to another person's presence.

Keep on arguing for the continued concentration of power by using irrational fear as your primary persuasive tool. Perhaps you can get even more people to misunderstand the concept of anarchy. Before you know it anyone who talks about freedom or liberty will be quickly dismissed as unrealistic utopian kooks too.

The biggest and strongest males would rule completely in any given situation, until murdered through trickery, luck, in their sleep or when a bigger stronger male in any situation took over. Even these brutal and unfair instances of something resembling order would quickly crumble.

Those with influence are at war with those who have power. It's clear what side you are on.

“The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.” ~ Thomas Paine

It would be miserable and short.

What experience are you basing that on?

In reality few creatures on earth practice complete anarchy. Even dumb animals have social standards and pack norms, which are primitive "governments."

Someday (I hope) governing of subjects (Rule) will be considered primitive compared to anarchic forms of government, and voluntary association will be the norm as opposed to mandatory compliance.

Bohemian(3860) Disputed
3 points

That people cannot function in a healthy manner without a master to be subordinate to, or some form of institutionalized hierarchal rule, is the argument of tyrants and slaves.

The existence of Common law does not inherently necessitate hierarchical authoritarian rule.

I suppose it does depend on how you are interpreting the word anarchy.

A state of society without government or law.

Actually small group interaction proves that anarchic relationships work just fine

If by a small group you mean about 4 or 5, then sure in some instances it works fine, but we have roughly 300 million people in this country.

“The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.” ~ Thomas Paine

Do you insist that Thomas Paine supported Anarchy? I can assure you he most certainly didn't, and to quote him as such is dishonest.

iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

That people cannot function in a healthy manner without a master to be subordinate to, or some form of institutionalized hierarchal rule, is the argument of tyrants and slaves. I suppose it does depend on how you are interpreting the word anarchy. If your perspective were to shift to where you viewed anarchy as being synonymous with freedom (like I do) I suppose you'd stop arguing against it.

A master is inaccurate. Agreed rules of behavior neither implies a master nor subordinates to any individual or entity other than agreed law. Western society is based on this model. The anarchic argument against current government is not arguing against reality, they are arguing against some perceived "master" which is not our collective agreement of standards of society. This is one of the many reasons this idea is dangerous. In this twisting of reality to discount our collective say in our own government anarchists are unknowingly embracing a system which would inevitably lead to a "master" everyone is subordinate to, whether a totalitarian regime to replace our collective say in government, or the anarchy ideal version I say is impossible, one where in any given situation the biggest and strongest are the "master" and this simply shifts based on the situation and who is there.

I'll take an agreed standard of behavior that protects the extent of freedoms possible in any society, without wishfully hoping should law cease everyone would be so benevolent as to allow the society you are imagining possible.

Actually small group interaction proves that anarchic relationships work just fine in the real world. It seems like you are arguing that robust cooperative associations cannot occur in the absence of a ruling class to keep everybody in line. Your claim that advancement would be impossible is based on nothing but your poorly informed hunch.

Again, what is this "ruling class" you speak of? You have an equal say in this government we have now. You are arguing against something which does not exist. Democracy and Representative Republic and others are robust cooperative associations, and the most successful in history. You would tare that down based on hope none would take advantage of the absence of agreed accepted behavior. This is not a realistic view of human behavior.

Keep on arguing for the continued concentration of power by using irrational fear as your primary persuasive tool. Perhaps you can get even more people to misunderstand the concept of anarchy. Before you know it anyone who talks about freedom or liberty will be quickly dismissed as unrealistic utopian kooks too.

Come now, surely you took civics and have practiced your right to vote at least once...

Those with influence are at war with those who have power. It's clear what side you are on.

lmao. wow. Those with power are the ones with influence. Society based on law instead of heritage, money, power, etc. is how these powers are balanced. Society based on law by definition is not anarchy. Remove law and there is nothing left to balance power and influence. Anarchy plays into the hands of those few with the most, not the other way around.

“The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.” ~ Thomas Paine

So says a founder of this country, and on which basis much of this government was designed. The design of a government where all have a say is the result of "a general association" for the "common interest." Without this, you are not doing anything new or novel, you are reseting from where this country started, and others. Perhaps this results in another democracy or representative republic, more times than not we see in human history it results in something much worse. Civilization cannot maintain (comparative) fairness in the distribution of power and opportunity without laws ensuring these things.

What experience are you basing that on?

Cave men--which is the closest thing to anarchy in history, though not anarchy.

Someday (I hope) governing of subjects (Rule) will be considered primitive compared to anarchic forms of government, and voluntary association will be the norm as opposed to mandatory compliance.

Someday I hope people are not so quick to throw away the result of communal progress of government spanning hundreds of thousands of years because they see dark shadows pulling invisible puppet strings in a government where in reality, they already do have all the power any human has ever had in history.

ThePyg(6738) Disputed
3 points

I feel that you always ignore whenever someone brings up that Anarchy does not equate chaos (due to you bringing up that family is not anarchy).

So really, anarchy wouldn't even be possible without government.

And since you're saying that Anarchy is impossible, this would mean that whatever is opposite of Anarchy is the only thing possible. If this is the case, than it is a natural way of doing things, meaning that any "anarchic" endeavors would not be threatening. In fact, you should, in no way, fear Anarchy if it is something that is impossible.

So really, all this description of what Anarchy would be like just sounds like paranoid delusions of something you have described as "impossible".

ThePyg(6738) Clarified
1 point

anarchy wouldn't even be possible without government.

Weirdly written. I meant that even without government, anarchy would STILL be impossible.

iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

Anarchy is the absence of order. The family unit you are speaking of is not anarchy.

You are redefining anarchy to simply mean smaller governments, whether that be a family unit, tribe, whatever. However, if there are rules, there is not anarchy.

0 points

I think it depends on the kind of anarchism that is implemented.

If it is a type of anarcho syndicalism, or pure socialism or communism, then I beleive that the limited individualism that exists currently among some (i.e. people who have the time to develop themselves as they see fit, mainly rich people who have no, or very few, obligations, or luckly people who managed to get a job in an area that they love e.g. scientists, philosophers, etc.) would blossom. I beleive a far freer, far finer form of individualism would take root in society, with much greater intensity.

Ironically however, if individual anarchism is implemented, it is very likely to lead to dictatorship.

steve789(207) Disputed
1 point

Your wrong, socialism is the most repressive system on economic freedom that there

is. Besides that, socialist anarchy is impossible, because, "you can't sell stuff" is a law.

--You might however be right about the last part though--

1 point

Actually, communism is the most repressive system on economic freedom that there is.

garry77777(1796) Disputed
0 points

"Your wrong, socialism is the most repressive system on economic freedom that there"

You clearly don't know what pure socialism or pure communism is, or at least, how they are supposed to function.

"Besides that, socialist anarchy is impossible,"

Not socialist anarchy, anarcho syndicalism.

""you can sell stuff" is a law"

I'm talking about voluntary associations, not laws.

0 points

Chaos. Anarchy is not a good thing .

1 point

I never said it was_______________________________________________________

garry77777(1796) Disputed
1 point

"Chaos. Anarchy is not a good thing ."

Anarchy doesn't necessarily imply chaos, it only implies the lack of a certralised authority, and it isn't a bad thing, in fact it can be a very very good thing. Anarchism was implemented successfully on a large scale in Spain prior to Franco's vistory, i.e.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain