So I take it your vote would be against creating a Department of Safe and Responsible Dating?
The Dating Market: Anarchy in Action
- Thread starter Don
- Start date
Diana said:
Can you be more specific as to exactly what you think anarchy means?
If you mean a single leader, or a small, cohesive group of leaders, then America is an anarchy. We have three equally powerful branches of government, and they are frequently at odds, and two of the three has its power distributed.
Even beyond those three branches, we have things like the NSA and FBI. We have departments like those of education and health. Each of these has a leader, and while they answer to others, they have considerable power over the things that fall into their purview.
In other words, while the power is not equally dispersed among the entire population, we have hundreds of congresspeople, administration, department heads, Supremes, ect, that share the power at the top. And those of us not at the top have say in that we do get to vote, as easily-led and dumb as you may believe us voters to be. The power IS dispersed. We don't have one dude in charge of it all. For that matter, neither does England, despite technically having a queen.
No leaders? Industry has leaders. Family clans have leaders. Some people are natural-born leaders.
Be more specific. Because I'm not sure that dictionaries contain the sort of very specific meaning you are trying to restrict the term "anarchy" to.
Captcha said:
I'm not sure it's clarified at all. The dictionary definition was given, and that's clearly not what's being used. Diana has said anarchy means "no leaders," but that's rather vague, and I mean, it's very common in dating for one person to take the lead, is it not? Don has said that flea markets and garage sales count as anarchy, which goes against Diana's definition of "no leaders," and honestly, leaves me kind of flummoxed by what he considers anarchy at all. If it is "lack of legitimate coercion," I'm not sure what human relationship - starting with that of parent-child but going right on up through dating, marriage, business partnerships, ect - is truly "anarchy" at that point, but I KNOW that standardly-run businesses are not anarchist in that sense. If it is your definition of "centralized authority," well, I've already posted the dictionary definition of those words, and honestly, I don't think the US government is as centralized as the relationship between two people.
I really would like to see an agreed-upon meaning for the term anarchy in this thread, because right now the goal posts seem to be a mirage, always somewhere in the horizon no matter how we try to move forward.
Diana said:
You can be involved in deep discussions on ancient political philosophies all you want, but it's still a valid point. Grinding on someone's concrete steps damages them. That someone may feel like they have a right to protect their property, with deadly force if necessary. The state of having no leaders CAN go wrong. And when it does, it leads to a situation where people are not safe walking out their own front door... or even, in some cases, hiding behind it. That is not freedom. So if you want to deeply and intelligently discuss anarchy, or even "a state of being without leaders," that "going wrong" part should be part of the discussion.
Also, note that this is all philosophical.
Philosophical is great. But in the real world, anarchy as defined by here by you, Captcha, and Don (which are apparently different definitions,) has never worked in the real world for any largish group of people for any meaningful amount of time. Anarchy as defined by the dictionary has and does happen. It's a real thing.
I pay attention to how things work in the real world.
Last edited:
So, you're saying that people who call themselves anarchists don't know what they're talking about?
There is a difference between leadership in general and the authoritative leaders that anarchy is against.
I will say that many people are terrified of the freedom of thinking for themselves, and that is a down side of anarchy, and you just brought things "going wrong? into the discussion, also, which is nice and inclusive of you.
I would suggest that most tribal governments though they have elders in a leadership (general) role are more anarchies than anything else. Further, I recommend the book, The Chalice and the Blade for a look at human life before tyranny disrupted humanity's natural anarchy which lasted for hundreds of thousands of years.
There are many different schools of anarchistic thought, also, so it's not surprising that you would get three different definitions. Just like there are many different types of Christians...
This definition that has been around since the greeks...
It was Angry Guy who brought up how things can go wrong, not me. But "how things can go wrong" was also, apparently, part of intent behind the original, Greek word.
I'm not saying anarchists don't know what they're talking about. I'm saying that they are talking about a utopian ideal that has never existed in the real world.
Also, what n political anarchist considers anarchy seems to vary a lot. Apparently, the dating market, flea markets, GM and Chrysler can all fit, depending on the anarchist you ask. (EDIT after reading your second response: Apparently, "anarchy" can also mean a tribal agreement to choose and follow a leader. Which seems to go against your definition of "no leaders.") I'd like an agreed-upon definition.
But more to the point, I'm saying that if you really want to intelligently discuss anarchy - however you choose to define it - you MUST consider the downsides. The "what if things go wrong." Because to only consider the absolute best, most positive way something could possibly go is incredible fallacy. Beyond Polly-Anna.
ESPECIALLY when we have had situations without leaders that have gone incredibly badly, but it has never, ever, in the course of human history, gone the way you suppose it would. (EDIT after reading second response: I have also read "The Alphabet and the Goddess." There are a lot of fascinating books about what we believe early societies were like; however, they did seem to have leaders.)
But you didn't answer my question.
(bolding mine)
It was Angry Guy who brought up how things can go wrong, not me. But "how things can go wrong" was also, apparently, part of intent behind the original, Greek word.
I'm not saying anarchists don't know what they're talking about. I'm saying that they are talking about a utopian ideal that has never existed in the real world.
Also, what n political anarchist considers anarchy seems to vary a lot. Apparently, the dating market, flea markets, GM and Chrysler can all fit, depending on the anarchist you ask. (EDIT after reading your second response: Apparently, "anarchy" can also mean a tribal agreement to choose and follow a leader. Which seems to go against your definition of "no leaders.") I'd like an agreed-upon definition.
But more to the point, I'm saying that if you really want to intelligently discuss anarchy - however you choose to define it - you MUST consider the downsides. The "what if things go wrong." Because to only consider the absolute best, most positive way something could possibly go is incredible fallacy. Beyond Polly-Anna.
ESPECIALLY when we have had situations without leaders that have gone incredibly badly, but it has never, ever, in the course of human history, gone the way you suppose it would. (EDIT after reading second response: I have also read "The Alphabet and the Goddess." There are a lot of fascinating books about what we believe early societies were like; however, they did seem to have leaders.)
But you didn't answer my question.
Last edited:
Sure, sounds fair. As long as we also point out that not everything has worked out swimmingly with leaders...
In fact, leaders are responsible for all the major genocides of the modern world, for the vast majority of wars, and therefore for the most human deaths in the last two centuries (not counting disease) can be laid at the feet of authoritative leaders.
Things do not work out perfectly with or without government. Agreed. I don't believe "perfection" is part of the state of being human.
But I feel we often run into a "No True Scotsman" fallacy with anarchy. We hear that anarchy means no leaders, or no legitimate coercion, or no centralized authority, and also that Somalia was not an anarchy. Anytime someone brings up a situation where an actual lack of leadership led to bloodshed, the anarchists among us are quick to decry that that is not what they meant by anarchy, but I've never seen a definition that precludes that state.
In fact, anarchists seem loathe to admit that there is any problems whatsoever with their theory, which, again, is strange considering that when there has indeed been "no leaders," "no legitimate coercion," and "no centralized authority" in the real world, for any serious amount of time with any largish group of people, since the birth of WRITING if not before, it has always, uniformly, 100%, gone badly.
But I feel we often run into a "No True Scotsman" fallacy with anarchy. We hear that anarchy means no leaders, or no legitimate coercion, or no centralized authority, and also that Somalia was not an anarchy. Anytime someone brings up a situation where an actual lack of leadership led to bloodshed, the anarchists among us are quick to decry that that is not what they meant by anarchy, but I've never seen a definition that precludes that state.
In fact, anarchists seem loathe to admit that there is any problems whatsoever with their theory, which, again, is strange considering that when there has indeed been "no leaders," "no legitimate coercion," and "no centralized authority" in the real world, for any serious amount of time with any largish group of people, since the birth of WRITING if not before, it has always, uniformly, 100%, gone badly.
Last edited:
Captcha
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Messages
- 4,456
- Reaction score
- 637
I'm a bit confused about your need for us to precisely define anarchy for you (according to ONE of its dictionary definitions) while at the same time you seem to feel you have a very complete understanding of what anarchists will say in response to any argument. If you don't know what anarchy means, how are you such an expert on the arguments of anarchists?
In terms of what it means, I think wikipedia is fine: "Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful,[1][2] or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_anarchism
In terms of the arguments that have apparently been advanced by all the other anarchists you've come into contact with - why don't we wait until someone advances those arguments HERE, and then that person can answer for their own words instead of the rest of us being expected to answer for someone else's?
(And, no, I'm not an anarchist, or even a libertarian - I just like political theory!)
Sure, well, as I pointed out, even with leaders...we don't do very well...heck...in the end...once the .0001% have used their system to take everything of value on this planet, and left the rest of us with nothing...I suspect it will be 100%, uniformly, and always thereafter...bad.
I will now bump my earlier post about the No True Scotsman Fallacy....
I've been on this forum, what, seven years? And during that time I've talked about anarchy a hell of a lot with both Diana and Don, who I am here discussing it with again, so yes, I do feel like I can discuss anarchy with them in a way that meets their intent behind the word.
At the same time, I feel like their definitions are rather nebulous. None of the definitions given here preclude the Somalia-like state that the dictionary suggests, and yet they will both say that that is not anarchy. As with the responses to the skaters that Angry Guy mentioned above, I see definitions of anarchy that are different from theirs - but in a way that I have never seen defined - dismissed as not understanding "real" anarchist theory.
In asking for a definition, I am not saying that I am clueless; I'm asking for a definition that will preclude those skaters and Somalia (if indeed, their definitions of anarchy do) and that will unify what it is that we are discussing, because nebulous definitions and shifting goalposts make it hard to actually discuss anything. ESPECIALLY when combined with the insistence that only "good" (fill-in-the-blank) is "real" (fill-in-the-blank.)
Okay. Skaters and Somalia included, then, when I'm talking to you. I wonder if they feel that definition will do, as well?
There is considerable history here that may not be evident on the thread, and I'm sorry if I seem to be arguing positions not clearly outlined here. I will re-read, but I do feel that, for the most part, I have directly copied something said here, as a quote, and responded to that. If I had mischaracterized anyone's position, I'm sure they would have set me straight. (EDIT: I have re-read. Everything I have said was a direct response to something I quoted from this thread and posted above my response, except for this line from my first post: "Still, you will probably argue that it counts because no one person is in charge of everything, or because both people have agreed." Since that argument was advanced after my post was made, I think it's safe to say that it wasn't too far out of bounds.)
I'm not asking you to answer for anyone but you, or Diana to answer for anyone but Diana, or Don to answer for anyone but Don. But again, if we're going to debate anarchy as a political theory, it would really help to have a unified theory of what that meant.
Barring that, it would be great to have even a single agreed-upon example of anarchy at work.
Same here.
Last edited:
Diana said:
I believe that you support anarchy as you define it.
The ancient Greeks included lawlessness in their meaning of the word, but at any rate, that's getting off the topic of you honestly believing what you say you do.
You can reserve the right to define a word however you please, I guess, but that doesn't mean that everyone else does, nor does it mean that your definition will be widely understood.
I am confused about your definition in that it means "no leaders," but at the same time means that tribes with leaders are anarchy.
The issue that I have can be phrased differently, but it is still an issue nonetheless. How can we intelligently discuss a political theory if those supporting it will not accept any situation in which their theory has failed as legitimate?
Last edited:
Nah, I don't think Somalia could qualify as anarchic if the concept is defined in terms of an absence of rulers. It could probably quality as an example of a country without a strong central government, though.
As I said, asking for one precise meaning of Anarchism is rather like asking for one precise set of practices for Christians. That said, I've quoted and linked a Wikipedia article on the different schools of anarchist thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Godwin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Godwinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Godwin
I agree with the heart of this. Authority is the fictional license to engage in violence that is justified by the state. Hence the state itself is an engine of violence. Hence, the state itself should be done away with.
But, as you can see, there are lots of schools of thought under the title of Anarchist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought
I hope this answers some of your questions.
The person who said it meant "no leaders" also specifically exempted tribal leaders.
It was definitely an example of a lack of central government or central authority.
Whether or not any of the coercion involved was "legitimate" is up for debate.
Are we now looking at yet another definition for anarchy?
Actually, I said there's a difference between leadership in general and leaders as authoritative agents of the state.
The flaw with anarchy as described in the Wikipedia article, or anywhere that I've seen, is what I call the "That One Asshole" problem.
There's always that one asshole.
That one person who breaks the rules in a way that cannot be ignored and refuses to accept any negative consequences for those actions. You can't just "ban" this guy, because he won't leave. You can't just shoot him dead, because you can't prove that he was the one that initiated force.
Who has authority over this guy? What can you do about him? How can you even be positive a rule was broken, in the first place?
I've never seen these questions answered.
Back to the dating world:
In our current set up, if the One Asshole decides he wants to date someone who doesn't want to date him, he can't just go take her. There are authority figures who can be called in and tell him he's not allowed to, and if he blatantly ignores that, there are courts and punishments that he simply does not have the right to ignore. Legitimate coercion can be used.
If the One Asshole decides to win an argument by using his fists, he can be charged with a crime, and if he tries to refuse having his fate determined by a jury of his peers, legitimate coercion can be used.
If the One Asshole gets a girl pregnant, legitimate coercion can be used to force him to take on some of the burden of care for that infant, even if he really, really doesn't want to.
Our dating environment exists within the structure of our current society. It benefits from the fact that we do have laws, and those laws are enforced. As such, it's more like Don's example of a flea market: not a true anarchy, but a situation in which society has added some rules ON TOP OF the already existing state and federal laws.
If it was not that way, the "That One Asshole" problem would emerge. The dating scene would get very ugly.
There's always that one asshole.
That one person who breaks the rules in a way that cannot be ignored and refuses to accept any negative consequences for those actions. You can't just "ban" this guy, because he won't leave. You can't just shoot him dead, because you can't prove that he was the one that initiated force.
Who has authority over this guy? What can you do about him? How can you even be positive a rule was broken, in the first place?
I've never seen these questions answered.
Back to the dating world:
In our current set up, if the One Asshole decides he wants to date someone who doesn't want to date him, he can't just go take her. There are authority figures who can be called in and tell him he's not allowed to, and if he blatantly ignores that, there are courts and punishments that he simply does not have the right to ignore. Legitimate coercion can be used.
If the One Asshole decides to win an argument by using his fists, he can be charged with a crime, and if he tries to refuse having his fate determined by a jury of his peers, legitimate coercion can be used.
If the One Asshole gets a girl pregnant, legitimate coercion can be used to force him to take on some of the burden of care for that infant, even if he really, really doesn't want to.
Our dating environment exists within the structure of our current society. It benefits from the fact that we do have laws, and those laws are enforced. As such, it's more like Don's example of a flea market: not a true anarchy, but a situation in which society has added some rules ON TOP OF the already existing state and federal laws.
If it was not that way, the "That One Asshole" problem would emerge. The dating scene would get very ugly.
Last edited:
I think the big problem with Somalia as an example of anarchy is that you had (still have, actually) large numbers of different factions fighting for rulership. On top of that, you do have a president and a central government there (albeit a very weak one, by most standards).
When my friends talk about the Zombie Apocalypse, where the state crumbles and there is complete lawlessness, the first thing they jump on is which one of us would be in charge of medical, which one would supply us with weapons, where we would hole up, ect. We'd be an instant faction.
It's my belief that that is one of the first things that happens when there is truly anarchy: people band together. They form factions. Because if there is no way to enforce your "rights" but force, you need to be the group with the most force. Otherwise, you're a sitting duck for someone who wants what you have and no one else will tell them they can't take it. Also: it is simply easier for human beings to exist as a group than as a solitary creature. It's in our genes.
In the case of Somalia, there may be technically a central government, but it had no power to enforce its laws, and seriously, if it had no power to make or enforce laws, it didn't really qualify as a government anymore. (According to the dictionary: "Government: the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states;" Or, Merriam Webster: "Government: the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc.")
The rest of that terrible mess was just people doing some of the things people will do in a lawless situation.
I admit: my friends talk about looting during the Zombie Apocalypse as a matter of course. It's not, "How would we afford..." but "Where would we get..."
It's fantasy. But it's also how people work.
It's my belief that that is one of the first things that happens when there is truly anarchy: people band together. They form factions. Because if there is no way to enforce your "rights" but force, you need to be the group with the most force. Otherwise, you're a sitting duck for someone who wants what you have and no one else will tell them they can't take it. Also: it is simply easier for human beings to exist as a group than as a solitary creature. It's in our genes.
In the case of Somalia, there may be technically a central government, but it had no power to enforce its laws, and seriously, if it had no power to make or enforce laws, it didn't really qualify as a government anymore. (According to the dictionary: "Government: the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states;" Or, Merriam Webster: "Government: the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc.")
The rest of that terrible mess was just people doing some of the things people will do in a lawless situation.
I admit: my friends talk about looting during the Zombie Apocalypse as a matter of course. It's not, "How would we afford..." but "Where would we get..."
It's fantasy. But it's also how people work.
Last edited:
It's not so much the creation of factions that's the issue, imo; it's more the idea of having factions whose goal is to rule over everyone else. And of course, ideologically, pretty much all of these groups in Somalia are authoritarian in nature.
In an anarchy, how would you police the goals of factions?
Are you saying that no person, group, or faction can even have the desire to have authority over anyone else, if it is a "true" anarchy?
Are you saying that no person, group, or faction can even have the desire to have authority over anyone else, if it is a "true" anarchy?
No, I'm not saying that. And perhaps I should have been clearer: the simple desire to rule over others isn't really the full extent of the problem with Somalia, imo; I think it's also the idea that might makes right and that violence and warfare are the proper ways of establishing dominance.
I would think you would actually agree that that sort of thing would disqualify Somalia as anarchist (or at least anarchist in the sense you're talking about), given what you said earlier…
In Somalia, the situation is the complete opposite. You can in fact shoot that guy dead, no?
I would think you would actually agree that that sort of thing would disqualify Somalia as anarchist (or at least anarchist in the sense you're talking about), given what you said earlier…
In Somalia, the situation is the complete opposite. You can in fact shoot that guy dead, no?
There are plenty of people who believe that, and would use that in a situation where law - enforced law - did not prevent them. In other words, as I said earlier in my post about factions, I believe that the idea that the larger, more powerful group will get its way and therefore, it's better to be in the larger, more powerful group, is a natural outcropping of lawlessness.
And no, I see no paradox when it comes to "might makes right" versus "enforced laws." Laws are agreed upon because they are seen as right, not simply because they can be enforced. It is not the force behind them that makes them right.
Yes. That's because in Somalia, the lack of leadership has indeed led to lawlessness. I believe that is often the case, because that's what has always happened.
The "That One Asshole" problem is not about lawlessness.
The "That One Asshole" problem comes up in the situation where there is no leaders/legit coercion/central government, but there are still rules - a state of anarchy that has never existed, but which is being espoused here. I did specifically say that that's the type of anarchy I was talking about, mentioning the Wikipedia article and all. I feel this problem shows part of why that particular brand of anarchy has never worked, and that was the point of the post.
I really don't want to keep playing on this Somalia tangent, though, so I'm dropping out of that derail. I don't mind if you get in the last word on it.
Last edited:
Sorry, I thought you were saying the "Asshole" problem was a problem ingrained in all versions of anarchy, not just a particular kind.