Re: Anarchy is Stupid
Uploader Comments (XOmniverse)
Top Comments
-
very nice. it's good to have a former objectivist here to tackle these things from such a perspective.
the argument against private defense agencies is so obnoxious. so.....defense agencies are less likely to get out of control if they can legally extort funds from those they "protect?"
something is stupid....and it's not anarchy....
-
Cropper often embodies the worst parts of Objectivism.
Video Responses
All Comments (57)
-
Anarchy is the absence of political authority; a condition of political disorder and confusion; absence of any common standard or purpose.
Do not confuse anarchy with anarchism, which is political theory holding that all governments are coercive and unnecessary.
-
Human beings are evil monsters. Every system that doesn't assume that to be the truth is an utopia. Anarchy just means war as long as supreme power does not exist.
-
it's true, how many intelegent people do you see go around killing each-other? Do you see people in nyc stricken with poverty violence is nyc a hellhole? because according to you it is. Evil is a learned behavior and is not inherent.
-
Tom Hobbes is a retard.
-
Would you still consider someone an Anarchist if they were open to the idea of having a state controlled monopoly on the use of force? Or would that disqualify them from being able to consider themself an anarchist? Same is true with Objectivism and Kelley
-
"the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for HONEST disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government." - AR Your supposed contradiction in objectivism seems a bit misleading....if you've actually read Rand on Anarchy.
Human beings can be violent creatures. Jesus fucking christ. You're basically saying everyone is nice and nobody would fuck anyone over.
BrettDunbar 2 years ago
When did I say that?
Wouldn't creating a centralized power source that people could easily abuse be BAD if human beings are fundamentally violent, abusive creatures?
XOmniverse 2 years ago 2
I was excited to read the article in the sidebar, then I saw the "Objectivist" that the article decided the debate in the first part was David Kelley. David Kelley is NOT an Objectivist, he is a wishy washy, half breed. You know this XOm, and I find it quite misleading that you would do this. The rest of the paper is quite sophisticated though ill likely be going over it the rest of the day today.
Twiggy269 2 years ago
I don't really directly identify with any Objectivist thinkers at this point other than perhaps Rand herself.
I'm not sure what is misleading about it. I didn't write the article, nor do I think David Kelley is so far off the mark that calling him an Objectivist is dishonest.
XOmniverse 2 years ago