NationStates Jolt Archive

Hopefully there are enough anarchists here to get a decent discussion:

Is anarchism a mean or an end?

What makes it so?

it's not really supposed to stop so in that sense it is a mean. if it became an end it would fail.

Anarchy relies on the inherent goodness of people.

And is therefore doomed to failure.

It's a means to its own end.

it's not really supposed to stop so in that sense it is a mean. if it became an end it would fail.

What do you mean?

Anarchy relies on the inherent goodness of people.

And is therefore doomed to failure.

Start another thread and I will refute this.

It's a means to its own end.

What do you mean? How can anarchy bring about anarchy?

What do you mean?




i can't remember. i'm wasted.


hang on, i'll have a go. it's related to my nation name after all.

if its not an end, what would the end BE?

"lets have anarchy so we can achieve our goal of...."

Anarchy relies on the inherent goodness of people.

And is therefore doomed to failure.

Goodness compared to what, prey tell?

the point of anarchism, and the revolution, is that it must perpetuate itself less it be bogged down and become the state by legitimising itself through simply being around for a while (the 'leadership' i mean). like some of what went wrong with the leninists in russia.

i'm really quite drunk.

if its not an end, what would the end BE?

"lets have anarchy so we can achieve our goal of...."


Immanetizing the eschaton, obviously.

so there is never an actual arachic "state" because without the constant revolution it will fall into statism and thus not be anarchy?

something like that, yes :)

edit: *does the Timewarp*

It is a means to the end of maximizing human liberty.

the point of anarchism, and the revolution, is that it must perpetuate itself less it be bogged down and become the state by legitimising itself through simply being around for a while (the 'leadership' i mean). like some of what went wrong with the leninists in russia.

i'm really quite drunk.

so there is never an actual anarchic "state" because without the constant revolution it will fall into statism and thus not be anarchy?

Immanetizing the eschaton, obviously.

well ya, obviously. but beyond that...



you are using words i dont understand again.

if its not an end, what would the end BE?

"lets have anarchy so we can achieve our goal of...."

What makes it an end?

did the timewarp ^^ :)

It is a means to the end of maximizing human liberty.

Isn't anarchy itself maximized human liberty?

Isn't anarchy itself maximized human liberty?Not exactly. It might be the maximum amount of liberty that is possible to achieve (at a given time), but the goal should be to find ways to achieve even more liberty.

Isn't anarchy itself maximized human liberty?

Thats the problem with anarchy. There is liberty to do anything and everything you want. People want power, people want sex, people want wealth, even if it is worthless, as long as it means something to them.

Somewhere, a charismatic figure will take power and get people under him. He will form a government, and from there, we shall progress from the natural state of anarchy and go straight toward the beginning of states.

In anarchy there will be no state to enforce anarchy, so states will form. Some say this is the natural state of us.

VVVV Lets do the time warp again!

What makes it an end?

because except for the vague goal of maximizing human liberty, it is the end point of the movement. you achieve an anarchy and ....there ya go you have what you wanted.

otherwise it would be a step along the way of something else. i go with anarchy because it will help me to my goal of world domination, for example. not that that makes sense but i dont know what it might be a tool for.

Thats the problem with anarchy. There is liberty to do anything and everything you want. People want power, people want sex, people want wealth, even if it is worthless, as long as it means something to them.

Somewhere, a charismatic figure will take power and get people under him. He will form a government, and from there, we shall progress from the natural state of anarchy and go straight toward the beginning of states.

In anarchy there will be no state to enforce anarchy, so states will form. Some say this is the natural state of us.

VVVV Lets do the time warp again!

doesnt that feed into IR's post on constant revolution?

"Not exactly. It might be the maximum amount of liberty that is possible to achieve (at a given time), but the goal should be to find ways to achieve even more liberty."---Jello Biafra


that doesn't make any sense. you cannot get any more than the maximum.....else it wouldn't BE the maximum. You can have complete liberty without having anarchy....you would just have to have a 'government' that takes nothing from you, doesn't make you do anything, and basically has no interaction with you other than asking what you would like it to do and taking care of those that violate the rights of others.

"Not exactly. It might be the maximum amount of liberty that is possible to achieve (at a given time), but the goal should be to find ways to achieve even more liberty."---Jello Biafra


that doesn't make any sense. you cannot get any more than the maximum.....else it wouldn't BE the maximum. You can have complete liberty without having anarchy....you would just have to have a 'government' that takes nothing from you, doesn't make you do anything, and basically has no interaction with you other than asking what you would like it to do and taking care of those that violate the rights of others.

He qualified it with the "at a given time", although I would be interested in knowing how potential liberty could increase with time.

the point is that her 'at a given time' is 100% you cannot get more than that. liberty isn't like money. you don't just print more, once you have it all, there isn't any more to get. there you go Vittos.....now you see what i'm confused about.....how do you produce more liberty? I surely don't know

That doesn't make any sense. you cannot get any more than the maximum.....else it wouldn't BE the maximum. You can have complete liberty without having anarchy....you would just have to have a 'government' that takes nothing from you, doesn't make you do anything, and basically has no interaction with you other than asking what you would like it to do and taking care of those that violate the rights of others.The maximum amount of liberty possible in one particular condition isn't necessarily the amount of liberty possible in the best condition for liberty. While you can create the maximum amount of liberty in our current condition with anarchism, anarchism's goal is to find or create conditions where further liberty is possible.

Jello, how exactly is anarchism going to "find or create conditions where further liberty is possible."??? if you already have full liberty, there is no more to get.

the point is that his 'at a given time' is 100% you cannot get more than that. liberty isn't like money. you don't just print more, once you have it all, there isn't any more to get. there you go Vittos.....now you see what i'm confused about.....how do you produce more liberty? I surely don't know

of course you can. there are always new circumstances where our liberty is compromised. that would happen in an anarchist society just the same as in our current society. the difference in an anarchist society is that we would actually have the means to do something about it because nobody would weild sufficient power to enforce any infringement on our liberty. they would be stripped of any authority before they could do anything about it. that is what the infinite revolution is about. constantly ensuring that liberty is maximised.

Jello, how exactly is anarchism going to "find or create conditions where further liberty is possible."??? if you already have full liberty, there is no more to get.Full liberty in a condition where trash collection isn't automated, for instance, is different than a condition where trash collection is automated, as now people have the liberty to not collect the trash, if they don't wish to, and it will still get done.

Full liberty in a condition where trash collection isn't automated, for instance, is different than a condition where trash collection is automated, as now people have the liberty to not collect the trash, if they don't wish to, and it will still get done.

So would you say that anarchism should have a goal in wealth or technological creation?

Jello, how exactly is anarchism going to "find or create conditions where further liberty is possible."??? if you already have full liberty, there is no more to get.

an economic/governmental system can only provide so much liberty even if it is the maximum possible.

once one has a functioning anarchy, one might work on maximizing psychological, sociological, religious, philosophical or other liberty that hasnt occurred to me ye.t

So would you say that anarchism should have a goal in wealth or technological creation?Yes, that would be one goal.

an economic/governmental system can only provide so much liberty even if it is the maximum possible.

once one has a functioning anarchy, one might work on maximizing psychological, sociological, religious, philosophical or other liberty that hasnt occurred to me ye.tThese would be further goals of anarchism.

"once one has a functioning anarchy, one might work on maximizing psychological, sociological, religious, philosophical or other liberty that hasnt occurred to me ye.t"---Ashmoria

that doesn't make any sense. how do you 'work on maximizing' something you already have? once you have a 'functioning anarchy' you already have as much liberty as you can get.

Yes, that would be one goal.

There are two points I would make:

1) I believe that liberty is a lack of interference, not a measure of means.

2) If the state provided limited liberty now, but created future liberty in the form of wealth and technology, would you support the state?

Yes, that would be one goal.

These would be further goals of anarchism.

as well it should be. we dont use the liberty we have NOW because of the constraints of psychology, etc.

There are two points I would make:

1) I believe that liberty is a lack of interference, not a measure of means.

2) If the state provided limited liberty now, but created future liberty in the form of wealth and technology, would you support the state?

i wouldn't.

There are two points I would make:

1) I believe that liberty is a lack of interference, not a measure of means.I would say that it is both. Having a car increases one's freedom of movement, and thus one's liberty.

2) If the state provided limited liberty now, but created future liberty in the form of wealth and technology, would you support the state?It might be a 'lesser of [X number] of evils' state, but no, as the state would still be interfering, and would likely be limiting the liberty of others further - perhaps the liberty of the creators of wealth.

"once one has a functioning anarchy, one might work on maximizing psychological, sociological, religious, philosophical or other liberty that hasnt occurred to me ye.t"---Ashmoria

that doesn't make any sense. how do you 'work on maximizing' something you already have? once you have a 'functioning anarchy' you already have as much liberty as you can get.

youre "being that way"

you cant expect an economic system to cure mental illness. you cant expect it to wipe out religious bigotry.

all you can do is expect 100% economic liberty from it. the rest needs to be worked on in ways that are appropriate to the problems.

I would say that it is both. Having a car increases one's freedom of movement, and thus one's liberty.

I consider that a conflation of freedom and ability.

We should not assume that I do not possess some freedom to fly simply because I don't have the ability.

It might be a lesser of X number of evils state, but no, as the state would still be interfering, and would likely be limiting the liberty of others further - perhaps the liberty of the creators of wealth.

But if state interference increased production of wealth, would you support the state?

i wouldn't.

Neither would I, because I consider anarchy an end in itself.

Anarchy isn't an economic system.

Neither would I, because I consider anarchy an end in itself.

exactly. and a state, no matter how many liberties it may allow for, must inevitably reserve some liberties for itself and restrict those liberties for the populace in order to maintain itself. therefore the state is inherently the anathema of liberty.

as well it should be. we dont use the liberty we have NOW because of the constraints of psychology, etc.Exactly. It's interesting that you get this, I've only seen you in a couple thread on this subject. Have you read about it independently?

I consider that a conflation of freedom and ability.

We should not assume that I do not possess some freedom to fly simply because I don't have the ability.How can you have the freedom to do something without the ability to exercise said freedom?

But if state interference increased production of wealth, would you support the state?No. Increased production of wealth isn't an end unto itself, how said wealth is distributed is important.

"How can you have the freedom to do something without the ability to exercise said freedom?"---Jello Biafra


very easily....because ability and freedom are two completely unrelated things. My ability to murder a newborn child doesn't make it a right for me. My right to speak as i choose is in no way infringed should i break my jaw and become unable to speak.

How can you have the freedom to do something without the ability to exercise said freedom?

You can't.

But that doesn't prove the inverse.

No. Increased production of wealth isn't an end unto itself, how said wealth is distributed is important.

You are kind of dodging my base question. If the state accomplishes the ends you desire better than anarchism, would you support the state?

Exactly. It's interesting that you get this, I've only seen you in a couple thread on this subject. Have you read about it independently?



noooooo. im not an anarchist because of its inherent impracticality. i do however believe in freedom and understand that that is where the love of the idea comes from.

very easily....because ability and freedom are two completely unrelated things. My ability to murder a newborn child doesn't make it a right for me. My right to speak as i choose is in no way infringed should i break my jaw and become unable to speak.I realize that an ability isn't a right, but I'm arguing that you don't have a right without an ability.
If you had no way of communicating with people after you broke your jaw, then you would not have freedom of expression.

You can't.

But that doesn't prove the inverse.Perhaps not, but why be concerned with freedom and not with the ability to exercise it?

You are kind of dodging my base question. If the state accomplishes the ends you desire better than anarchism, would you support the state?I don't see this as being possible, since other forms of liberty is the liberty to make decisions. This is best accomplished via direct democracy, where there is no state.
A representative takes away from me the ability to make certain decisions.

noooooo. im not an anarchist because of its inherent impracticality. i do however believe in freedom and understand that that is where the love of the idea comes from.Oh, I knew that you weren't an anarchist, but it's cool that you like the idea anyway. :)

Anarchy relies on the inherent goodness of people.

And is therefore doomed to failure.

Anarchy depends on societies being small enough that all members know each other personally. Therefore it is doomed to antiquity.

"but I'm arguing that you don't have a right without an ability."---Jello Biafra

and that just doesn't seem to make any sense. a quadriplegic has every right to self defense. Their inability to do so effectively certainly doesn't invalidate their right in any way. your freedom to assemble is not violated merely because the people you wish to gather with are in australia and you cannot spare the cash for a plane or boat ticket. a baby's right to speak freely is still intact despite the fact that it hasn't figured out how to talk yet.

you are born with your rights. they never cease to exist, they never go away, and they aren't magically created.

"but I'm arguing that you don't have a right without an ability."---Jello Biafra

and that just doesn't seem to make any sense. a quadriplegic has every right to self defense. Their inability to do so effectively certainly doesn't invalidate their right in any way. your freedom to assemble is not violated merely because the people you wish to gather with are in australia and you cannot spare the cash for a plane or boat ticket. a baby's right to speak freely is still intact despite the fact that it hasn't figured out how to talk yet.

you are born with your rights. they never cease to exist, they never go away, and they aren't magically created.

what good is a right if you dont have any way to exercise it? what good is freedom if you have no ability to act on it?

and that just doesn't seem to make any sense. a quadriplegic has every right to self defense. Their inability to do so effectively certainly doesn't invalidate their right in any way. Yes, what I should have said was that you don't have a freedom without an ability.

you are born with your rights. they never cease to exist, they never go away, and they aren't magically created.Of course they do. They are dependant upon the social contract, which could change over time.
Unless of course, you can prove that rights are objective.

you seem to be confusing rights and privileges. You do not have to believe in the concept of rights. You could for instance believe that power is what matters: have the power to do something? then go for it.

but a right is inherent. if it has to be given to you, it isn't a right.

you seem to be confusing rights and privileges. You do not have to believe in the concept of rights. You could for instance believe that power is what matters: have the power to do something? then go for it.

but a right is inherent. if it has to be given to you, it isn't a right.

then we have no rights.

then you don't believe there is any reason for me to NOT shoot you and take your television?

I'm for Anarchy as long as it's tightly controlled and regulated.

then you don't believe there is any reason for me to NOT shoot you and take your television?

there are plenty of reasons. what does that have to do with rights?

'there are plenty of reasons'

then why don't you give us some reasons more important than human rights for not shooting people and taking what they have.

Perhaps not, but why be concerned with freedom and not with the ability to exercise it?

I think this is getting a little muddled.

I don't see this as being possible, since other forms of liberty is the liberty to make decisions. This is best accomplished via direct democracy, where there is no state.

Isn't it feasible that one economic genius could regulate the economy better than a direct democracy?

'there are plenty of reasons'

then why don't you give us some reasons more important than human rights for not shooting people and taking what they have.

my "right" not to be killed by you is defined by the state. the state (and the society that exists in that state) decides what is and what is no justifiable homicide. i have no absolute right to not be killed by you.

hold on hold on. you're mixing up your words again. states do not grant rights, nobody can 'grant' rights. you grant PRIVILEGES.

you claim that we do not have inherent rights that grant us the authority to control our own lives.......what exactly are you claiming grants the state the authority to control our lives?

hold on hold on. you're mixing up your words again. states do not grant rights, nobody can 'grant' rights. you grant PRIVILEGES.

you claim that we do not have inherent rights that grant us the authority to control our own lives.......what exactly are you claiming grants the state the authority to control our lives?

what are these rights that cant be given or taken away? i see none.

human rights is a powerful idea but its just an idea. it doesnt exist outside of the minds of those who accept it.

i wasnt claiming that any granting of authority, just the simple fact that the state does have control over our lives. if you think it doesnt, try coming to my house, kiling me and stealing my tv. youll find that the state has more than enough power to put you in jail for the rest of your life or perhaps even take your life as punishment for the act.

Isn't it feasible that one economic genius could regulate the economy better than a direct democracy?

True, but that wouldn't make people feel empowered. Anarchy is the state of no state. Yet that one genius is all it takes for anarchy to completely collapse.

Also, what are we arguing about? I was mostly going for anarchy is a nice idea, until you realize you couldn't stand a life without technology and the massive support group that the current world supports. And like the fakeposter said, anarchy can only work in a tightly controlled situation, meaning no one has any real liberty, but the illusion of such, as it can be taken away at any moment.

"what are these rights that cant be given or taken away? i see none.

human rights is a powerful idea but its just an idea. it doesnt exist outside of the minds of those who accept it.

i wasnt claiming that any granting of authority, just the simple fact that the state does have control over our lives. if you think it doesnt, try coming to my house, kiling me and stealing my tv. youll find that the state has more than enough power to put you in jail for the rest of your life or perhaps even take your life as punishment for the act."---Ashmoria

i never said the state doesn't have power.......but power doesn't have anything to do with the concept of rights. it is no wonder that you cannot see any.....you don't believe in them. just as it is impossible to see love, evil, good, etc.....they are all just ideas.

I believe that just because the power to do something exists, doesn't mean that it SHOULD be done. I'm not sure you are in the right place. The concept of anarchy is all about these concepts that you don't believe in. Anarchy is about what should be done, not what the power exists to do. There will always be the power to influence the lives of others. That same power exists in a dictatorship, an anarchy, a collective, etc.

"what are these rights that cant be given or taken away? i see none.

human rights is a powerful idea but its just an idea. it doesnt exist outside of the minds of those who accept it.

i wasnt claiming that any granting of authority, just the simple fact that the state does have control over our lives. if you think it doesnt, try coming to my house, kiling me and stealing my tv. youll find that the state has more than enough power to put you in jail for the rest of your life or perhaps even take your life as punishment for the act."---Ashmoria

i never said the state doesn't have power.......but power doesn't have anything to do with the concept of rights. it is no wonder that you cannot see any.....you don't believe in them. just as it is impossible to see love, evil, good, etc.....they are all just ideas.

I believe that just because the power to do something exists, doesn't mean that it SHOULD be done. I'm not sure you are in the right place. The concept of anarchy is all about these concepts that you don't believe in. Anarchy is about what should be done, not what the power exists to do. There will always be the power to influence the lives of others. That same power exists in a dictatorship, an anarchy, a collective, etc.

ok so we agree that rights dont exist but SHOULD exist. as i said, its a powerful idea that there are rights that arent dependant on the state or society.

it seems to me that an anarchy that would actually be good for people must include the idea of human rights and that everyone must agree on them. they arent "self evident" or "inalienable", they are a consensus fought out between people of goodwill who want the maximum freedom in society. where there are people, there are disagreements. even an anarchy has to have some guiding principles to aid in solving those disagreements.

no, we don't agree. see, i believe in rights, love, evil, good, and many other concepts that have no physical existence

Anarchy is an end, not a means: a genuinely free society without rulers is good in itself.

The real question is whether it can be achieved... and how close the methods of political and economic organization advocated by anarchists can come to achieving it.

I was mostly going for anarchy is a nice idea, until you realize you couldn't stand a life without technology and the massive support group that the current world supports.

Why do you think those things couldn't/wouldn't exist without a state?

Is anarchism a mean or an end?

What makes it so?

Anarchism, the political theory, is a means to reaching the goal of anarchy itself, I would say, much like music theory provides an understanding of music while not being the same thing as it. Granted, I don't see things as part of some grand progression to utopia, so anarchism is a guide for living more anarchically now.

you seem to be confusing rights and privileges. You do not have to believe in the concept of rights. You could for instance believe that power is what matters: have the power to do something? then go for it.

but a right is inherent. if it has to be given to you, it isn't a right.If rights are inherent, then what are they based on? Also, what rights do we have?

Isn't it feasible that one economic genius could regulate the economy better than a direct democracy?It's unlikely that this person would come to the conclusion that resources should be shared equally (or nearly so) amongst the populace. Any other distribution of resources should be fought against.

I thought anarchism (or some other form of it) is an end, and revolution is the mean?

I thought anarchism (or some other form of it) is an end, and revolution is the mean?

I assume that Vittos means end in itself - something pursued for its own sake.

An end, I suppose. I mean, when you're the last person left, and thus in the only feasible situation that allows anarchy, what goal could you possibly be trying to reach with it?