Are Anarchists Naive?

[Barrettatsumaki]

Maybe it's an arrogant & ignorant standpoint, but I wouldn't say that it's ill-intentioned.

[Barrettatsumaki]

In response to your last point, maybe these people you are talking about (e.g. Ron Paul) simply want to take over this system because they think that, while we do have these corrupt systems in place, at least they will be able to minimize the damages of it more than others. Perhaps it isn't the power over others that motivates them, but rather a belief that better it's them controlling it than someone who has more sinister intentions.

[Motherlandpluto]

Was it your daughter you asked to sit down?

[64TbirdLandau]

ⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶ­­ⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶⒶ­Ⓐ

[alistairproductions]

I would prefer to only get punched in the face on the Tuesdays and Thursdays when I am in a good mood, I don't like getting punched when I'm in a bad mood

[mysty0]

Ya., you are naive lmao

Im aboriginal mate so I understand the basic law of nature some refer to as the law of retaliation.., and tribally we have dedicated law keepers so that retaliation is executed and both sides understand its grounds., those we call lawmen who are authorised to use force also understand the principle of the law of retaliation so act within the confines of what is lawful

You white have really gone and screwed this shit right up havent ya

[BJ151]

I think that both options are naive, because if you take human nature/reality into account, then you're dealing with genes and everything it implies. (personality traits like narcissism,neuroticism) I believe that the power of a society that views violence as BAD doesn't measure up against the power of the shortcomings of humans.

[BJ151]

@BJ151 We are easily conditioned in every society, so it just takes a person/people with a desire for greed to be conditioned that violence is a fast, profitable way to feed off of the rest, to create chaos again:p (unfortunately)

[leldoryn]

Read Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Malatesta, and Voltairyne de Cleyre. There are many more worthwhile, good consequentialist arguments against the state than just the violence argument. Most people who support the state believe that violence is completely necessary to keep people in line enough to have a working society.

[chakirara]

human beings are omnivores (spelling?) so they can choose between meat or vegetables, a large amount of the population prefere meat. its not a question on weather your niave or not its on human nature, since early existence man kind has fought for survival and status, people want to be above their peers. once people are above their peers their morals are changed, new surroundings new friend circles new standards to live by, and as the extreem poor live in dirt the rich live among the poor and do

[MarmaladeINFP]

Stef misunderstands. His naivette isn't in his criticism of the present system but in his proposal of his own system. I've been to his website. I've read his articles & listened to his videos.

Stef admits in either this video or another that his utopian society is improbable. His argument is that we should strive for the improbable. That is a noble ideal. My criticism of naivette is that he isn't fully considering the probability that his utopia would turn into just a new form or oppression.

[cjrsoccer1]

@MarmaladeINFP Saying he's naive isn't really an argument - you're just stating your conclusions.

I'd invite you to check out "Would anarchy create governments" for a response to your concerns about a "new form of oppression."

[zoomjoo]

i have a question:

is anarchism closest politically to existentialism?

[24BIT24BIT]

SUCH REASON!!

5 stars

[McConsumer]

The problem I have with your idea is that you propose to break up the governing monopoly that we now have and introduce competition

(There is a sci-fi book called "Infoquake" it takes a look at how competing governments might look like)

No matter what form it takes it will still need to enforce the laws. If murder is a destructive force on society, then THAT is the initiation of violence, and the government response would be a form of self defense. The same could be said for not paying taxes.

[BrotherBabylon]

As an anarchist I feel no obligation whatsoever to acknowledge the authority of the anarchist movement to determine the methodology by which I attempt to create a better world for everyone.

[riorio23]

Well self defence is violence and i am sure your not condeming that so there are exceptions to your rule 'violance is bad'.

[stefbot]

Sure! Self-defense is to violence as surgery is to stabbing.

[chakirara]

@stefbot yeh but surgery is healing them you massive retard, violence is killing, i duno can you see the difference?

so are you saying if someone stabbed you, you wouldnt want surgery because its stabbing...

[jacksawild]

@chakirara You fail at understanding. He's saying he would defend himself against violence but that doesn't make him inherently violent, you massive retard.

[McConsumer]

the initiation of violence is bad according to these guys...not all violence.

[McConsumer]

the initiation of violence is bad according to these guys...not all violence.

[blastingcaps]

OH jesus, can we have a discussion without bringin up the goddamn slaves.

snore.

[cosmanthony21]

How is a violent collision of two galaxies bad. How is the violence of a thunderstorm; taken a step further, lightning slashing through at tree, bad. Some violence is natural and isnt subject to morality.

[contrarianbastard]

So if I punched you in the mouth because I believed that you were polluting the discussion with an idiotic comment, would it be immoral?

[cosmanthony21]

well you missed the point i was making but i guess your right about polluting the discussion.

[blastingcaps]

where thats almost a funny reply, its not the same thing. BECAUSE it would spurn more violence and its clearly not a good way to approach life if you dont want fucked up yerself.

[saxmanmax]

Wouldn't minarchy be a good transitional phase between the state and market anarchy?

[stefbot]

I don't think that 'less slavery' is the solution to 'slavery' - gradualism in theory is perpetualism in practice...

[saxmanmax]

How do you suggest moving toward anarchy? A boycott off the government? Violent Overthrow?

[danconia3873]

Well that's the million-dollar question, ain't it? Gradualism, in practice, has certainly been a miserable failure so I guess us anarchists just have to keep our eyes open for opportunities. The Free State Project would be interesting if they didn't have to yield to federal law.

[tridentmovies]

@ danconia3873

You plan on convincing people that anarchism is better than (gradualist) minarchism with this argument?

Just keep your eyes open for opportunities? Opportunities to do...what exactly? Incur a magic spell that will make all government disappear in a peaceful way?

[Shezmu]

The answer is simple: just convince enough people that anarchy is the best choice and when the state loses it's power over enough people the government will simply disappear.

[NeonKnight88]

The large problem is that the communists are going to try to kill the anarchists.

[Shezmu]

Define communists. Do you mean politicians?

[tridentmovies]

I think you mean "statists" instead of commies. And statists include fascists, theocratists, neo-cons, social-democrats, commies etc.

Some anarchists actually are "commies" (at least until they realize that without rule you cannot ban private property, then they become statists)

[tridentmovies]

That's a question that no anarchist has been able to satisfactorily answer. It's mostly wishful thinking not based on any logic or knowledge of human nature. There have been revolutions -overthrow of rulers - but how many have said: "to hell with rulers. We don't need another government."?

People will never go from statism to absolute anarchy. It's futile to assume they will.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@tridentmovies

Yep. Wishful thinking. Logic? It makes for a nice theory. Human nature? The reality of humans always gets in the way of all good theories. Has a state ever been overthrown without a new state taking it's place? Nope. Oh well. It's nice to dream.

[scottferrie]

I am an Anarchist also, Minarchy is tyranny also...

Some Minarchists are for arm control including WMD's

[parispeter2]

Perhaps you could answer my questions below then, as Stefan is on holiday!

[parispeter2]

And even Ayn Rand admitted that you needed police, an army and law courts!

[sabot96]

I was starting to lean toward Libertarianism. Thank you for making it clear that this is not the route to what I really want. I want the removal of force from human interaction.

[parispeter2]

Dream on!

[parispeter2]

Sorry for repeating: I thought the first one hadn't got posted! But I could add that if states are violent, that violence is delegated (in democracies) by individuals. And so the solution is not abolishing the state (violent drives would remain in individuals and be freely expressed as we see in Somalia etc.) but channelling and sublimating violence through business, sport and culture and ultimately reducing it through education.

[stefbot]

Somalian violence is fostered by external governments such as the US, which sells arms to various groups. I certainly agree that we need a philosophical framework to deal with issues of violence. Thanks for watching! :)

[parispeter2]

Thanks, but you haven't answered my two questions : (1) In the absence of all government will individuals behave like angels? ; (2) What justifies the idea that states grow inevitably (recent experience seems to prove the opposite)? I believe it is because these questions are unanswerable, but none of my opinions are unrevisable!

[scottferrie]

My answer to number one is that it is in peoples economic and social self interest to get along with others in a free market society. Also, I believe people are good natured. My question to who is why does one believe the government is full of angels, they are individuals also. Free Markets of Values is the best way to go.

[scottferrie]

Also, the large majority of people Somalia are totally cool with the idea of no government. The UN is actually trying to force a government on them. Violence is happening when foriegn governments try to rise in Somalia with the support of the UN.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@scottferrie

Afghanistan is an interesting example of a failed state which for all practical purposes is a stateless society. All governance is localized in tribal leadership. The tribes create temporary shifting coalitions to protect their territories. All permanent large governance is entirely dependent on the agreement of tribes, but the state government can't force the tribes to do anything. What is the result of this stateless tribalism? Endless violence!

[parispeter2]

You're responding to minarchists, but what about a convinced statist like me?! If you accept a real debate, that is. Do you really believe that in the absence of govt, individuals would do no violence to each other? What justifies your assertion that states grow inevitably? (recent experience seems to prove the opposite!)? Anarchy exists - in Somalia and parts of Afghanistan; I prefer to stay here in France, with all its imperfections!

[scottferrie]

Statism simply does not work economically. There is a lot of waste and suffering in a HardCore Statist Society.  Corporatism and other forms of tryanny need the support of the state to survive.

[parispeter2]

People's self-interest is just what they take it to be, and the idea that all are good-natured or would just peacefully exchange goods is wishful thinking. Somalia is in turmoil because numerous ambitious individuals are vying to take power by killing all their opponents, not for the reasons you gave. And statism does work economically - on the list of the wealthiest countries in the world you'll see many with large states (Sweden, Germany, France etc.)

[parispeter2]

You're replying to the scepticism of "minarchists" but what can you say to a convinced statist like me?! Do you really believe that in the absence of govt individuals would do no violence to others? What justifies your assertion that the state grows inevitably (recent experience proves the opposite!)? Anarchy exists - in Somalia and parts of Afghanistan! I prefer to stay in France, with all its imperfections!

[scottferrie]

I want to destroy the cancer totally but it would be stupid if I did not take the option to reduce. It is like saying "I am going to die anyway so why eat???"

[stefbot]

How's that been working out for the past 100 years or so? ;)

[scottferrie]

Not really...

[scottferrie]

Are you even a real Anarchist. You are not really fighting for Anarchy, you are not voting for a weaker government and you are not engaged in an armed struggle with the state. Far as I know, you are supporting the state by embracing it by acceptance...

[stefbot]

I am a real anarchist, but a philosopher.

[scottferrie]

Well I love your videos, keep making them.  =] =] =]

[EvilLaughKid]

Here is your choice, take a somewhat risky procedure to kill the cancer, or treat eat for the rest of your life til you die.

It is like you are saying, "I am going to die, if I do nothing, or halfass this. If I want to survive, I have to move forward full steam.

[scottferrie]

how do we eliminate the state without incrementalism?

[EvilLaughKid]

revolution

[scottferrie]

Ok, is there an armed struggle going on right now? I have thought of that, but the state is too strong right now and the will is very weak, we need to make the state weaker first. What do you think of that?

[EvilLaughKid]

"small government" doesn't make it weaker. If gives power to corporations which feed the government. It just focuses it. I'm all for small social government with heavy corporate regulations (because as we are now they dont care about breaking the rules because they aren't punished) as an increment. But which party is for that, besides the greens maybe?

Personally I don't think any party no matter their intentions can do too much to the system as its set up to withstand political hurricanes.

[scottferrie]

Corporate Power stems from government regulation and corporate welfare, both parties want big government economically through regulation and corporate welfare because they are both socialist factions. There are different types of socialist around the world and I believe the Greens to be another socialist organization. Do you understand where I am coming from?

[MarmaladeINFP]

@EvilLaughKid

True. Small government could simply be even more concentrated power. This would lead to even more corruption and abuse. A large government at least includes many people who can disagree and challenge eachother. That is the idea of US separation of powers.

[cropperb]

(10:30) It is not the case that "violence is bad". It is INITIATION of force that is bad.

[stefbot]

Agreed - thanks!

[scottferrie]

I am a Libertarian and I just want to know your perspective on a subject, What do we do with people who violate someones rights and why?

[EvilLaughKid]

You work to fix the underlying causes on why people violate others rights, instead of making those causes more powerful, and punishing the victims of those circumstances which push people to crime.

Until those causes are gone, restorative justice is a much better system then court extortion and the prison system.

[cropperb]

Stefbot, the things you mention the gov shouldn't do - forced taxes, military draft, regulation of private property uses - are all precluded by capitalism, which would have private property, voluntary taxation, and a volunteer army. This is a false dilema - anarchism that is.

[stefbot]

Well, there's still a difference between getting a job and being a slave, though the work gets done either way.

[cropperb]

I disagree - the work doesn't get done either way. Slaves barely produce more than is needed to pay for the whip that drives them. Free men create everything. So the comparison is not accurate. How is the presence of a state tantamount to slavery (if that state were capitalist)?

[scottferrie]

You say less violence is not good. Well we need to take what we get. If you had a choice between getting your balls chopped off or your chin being tapped, you should choose the latter. Anarchists should vote for smaller government, they should be involved in the political process. If on does not participate, they are in a sense saying they do not care about the amount of violence going on...

[EvilLaughKid]

"small government" is just republicans that dont care about gay marriage and drugs. taking away regulation in the system we have gives more power to corporations, who have too much power already.

[tridentmovies]

Corporations have power thanks to government.

Read books by Gabriel Kolko.

Regulations are in place to maintain the size and power of the already established powerhouses in the corporate world, while small business have to pay arms and legs just to get a business running.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@EvilLaughKid

Yep. Small government doesn't mean small power. Transnationals aren't controlled by any specific state government and yet they wield massive power which reaches around the world. Transnationals can locate their factories anywhere and put their money in their own privately owned banks. They can hire private militias and operate private espionage. They can bribe governments and manipulate weak state governments. They can buy islands and create their own corporate governance.

[cropperb]

The issue isn't state or no state, nor is the issue how big should the state be. The issue is, should the state be allowed to initiate force or not. In capitalism, the initiation of force (by anyone, including the govenrment) would be illegal, by definition.

[MetaMorphy]

Who should pay? Ideally, the criminals and murderers themselves should be forced to forfeit their property in accordance with the kind of crime they committed and be required to work. The rest could be supported by court fees and donations given by private citizens. Indeed, Rome operated on the basis of public largess during its noblest and best peroid.

[MetaMorphy]

The use of force is not absolutely bad; the intiation of force is bad. It is perfectly good to capture a murderer and place him in prison. I believe this is the false assumption behind your argument.

[MetaMorphy]

Retaliatory force and the intiation of force are not the same thing.

[spots1327]

When you send a person to prison you are taking away their right to decide what happens to their body. Rights don't just disappear after you commit a crime.

[BrightAnarchist]

I still vote libertarian. But I understand your point.

[BrightAnarchist]

"Rialed up". (sp?) I know that feeling. Nobody gets it worse than us AnCaps. I hate arguing -- but I love debating.