Is Anarchy a form of Tyranny?

[Thorthoth]

@ Sym. You're just being your usual obtuse idiot self.
@ Duk, That's what I was saying. The two states of society are government and conflict. The term 'anarchy' is sometimes used to describe the conflict stage and sometimes misapplied to describe simple quasi-utopian government. Since the term is thus both ambiguous and mostly incorrect, it would be wise to describe such situations in other ways.

No, no, no, no! You don't get to cherry pick the part of my post that you liked and pretend I'm agreeing with you.

What I said was, there is just as much evidence for the optimistic view of anarchy as there is for the pessimistic view. So, while the pessimists might say "the two states of society are government and conflict", the optimists might say "the two states of society are government and co-operation."

My conclusion was that it is a transition stage from one governmental era to another, but I did not lend any credence to the theory that the transition stage is necessarily evil.

Allah fucking a llama Duk, what is your problem??????
First of all what you call 'cooperation' is in fact, GOVERNMENT, thus it is NOT anarchy.
Secondly, don't use the word 'evil' unless you're making the joke. Hell, the closest thing to evil is a person who thinks something else is evil... and even that person is not 'evil' just stupid and/or douchey; for example, Sym.

[Symmetry]

@ Sym. You're just being your usual obtuse idiot self.
@ Duk, That's what I was saying. The two states of society are government and conflict. The term 'anarchy' is sometimes used to describe the conflict stage and sometimes misapplied to describe simple quasi-utopian government. Since the term is thus both ambiguous and mostly incorrect, it would be wise to describe such situations in other ways.

No, no, no, no! You don't get to cherry pick the part of my post that you liked and pretend I'm agreeing with you.

What I said was, there is just as much evidence for the optimistic view of anarchy as there is for the pessimistic view. So, while the pessimists might say "the two states of society are government and conflict", the optimists might say "the two states of society are government and co-operation."

My conclusion was that it is a transition stage from one governmental era to another, but I did not lend any credence to the theory that the transition stage is necessarily evil.

Allah fucking a llama Duk, what is your problem??????
First of all what you call 'cooperation' is in fact, GOVERNMENT, thus it is NOT anarchy.
Secondly, don't use the word 'evil' unless you're making the joke. Hell, the closest thing to evil is a person who thinks something else is evil... and even that person is not 'evil' just stupid and/or douchey; for example, Sym.

Meh

[Dukasaur]

@ Sym. You're just being your usual obtuse idiot self.
@ Duk, That's what I was saying. The two states of society are government and conflict. The term 'anarchy' is sometimes used to describe the conflict stage and sometimes misapplied to describe simple quasi-utopian government. Since the term is thus both ambiguous and mostly incorrect, it would be wise to describe such situations in other ways.

No, no, no, no! You don't get to cherry pick the part of my post that you liked and pretend I'm agreeing with you.

What I said was, there is just as much evidence for the optimistic view of anarchy as there is for the pessimistic view. So, while the pessimists might say "the two states of society are government and conflict", the optimists might say "the two states of society are government and co-operation."

My conclusion was that it is a transition stage from one governmental era to another, but I did not lend any credence to the theory that the transition stage is necessarily evil.

Allah fucking a llama Duk, what is your problem??????
First of all what you call 'cooperation' is in fact, GOVERNMENT, thus it is NOT anarchy.
Secondly, don't use the word 'evil' unless you're making the joke. Hell, the closest thing to evil is a person who thinks something else is evil... and even that person is not 'evil' just stupid and/or douchey; for example, Sym.

No, co-operation is NOT government. Government is the exploitation of people by an armed gang which compels them to obey its dictates. Co-operation is people working together willingly.

[Thorthoth]

No, co-operation is NOT government. Government is the exploitation of people by an armed gang which compels them to obey its dictates. Co-operation is people working together willingly.

Duk, are you attemptinga sarcastic parody of anti-government rhetoric... or are you just drunk?

[Dukasaur]

No, co-operation is NOT government. Government is the exploitation of people by an armed gang which compels them to obey its dictates. Co-operation is people working together willingly.

Duk, are you attemptinga sarcastic parody of anti-government rhetoric... or are you just drunk?

No, that's simply the literal truth. Government is coercion by force. This is not to say it is always evil. Sometimes people are coerced into doing good things. Nonetheless, the core of government is the fact that it uses brute force to force compliance with its dictates. It is the opposite of people co-operating by mutual consent.

[Thorthoth]

No, co-operation is NOT government. Government is the exploitation of people by an armed gang which compels them to obey its dictates. Co-operation is people working together willingly.

Duk, are you attemptinga sarcastic parody of anti-government rhetoric... or are you just drunk?

No, that's simply the literal truth. Government is coercion by force. This is not to say it is always evil. Sometimes people are coerced into doing good things. Nonetheless, the core of government is the fact that it uses brute force to force compliance with its dictates. It is the opposite of people co-operating by mutual consent.

cooperation is the candy-coating of all government. Don't believe me? Try not ''cooperating'.
Seriously, implicit unspoken enforcement may seem all sweet and genteel, but usually it involves some sneaky weasel getting a free ride or a fat slice. The subsequent conflict that ends in either regime change or doubling down on the sticks and carrots is usually long overdue when it occurs.

[tzor]

So you reject any idea of anarchy that allows for for relationships, or love, or inter-dependency. That seems like a very narrow view.

No I reject calling any such system "anarchy" and I think the ball is in your court to provide an official definition to support your use of the term.

[tzor]

No, that's simply the literal truth. Government is coercion by force. This is not to say it is always evil. Sometimes people are coerced into doing good things. Nonetheless, the core of government is the fact that it uses brute force to force compliance with its dictates. It is the opposite of people co-operating by mutual consent.

I would take it one step further. Coercing someone to do a good thing actually results in more net evil in the world. It is flat out impossible to make a person more moral by the force of law. This is a direct result of that annoying thing known as "free will." People must come to the conclusion of the moral good on their own. (Note preventing people from doing evil is often a necessary act but that's different from getting someone to actually do good.)

[DoomYoshi]

No, co-operation is NOT government. Government is the exploitation of people by an armed gang which compels them to obey its dictates. Co-operation is people working together willingly.

Its the existence of governance that determines when something is government or not. There is economic governance: when two people agree to trade rather than just pillaging, they are governing the allocation of resources. There is familial governance, as already discussed in this thread. There is church governance. Many even speak about mental governance where the rational mind over-rides and thereby governs the baser instincts.

Just like a truck governor resists the natural impulse of the vehicle/driver, anything which leads to less entropy in a system is government. Built a fence today? You just exhibited autocratic government over the state of the wood and nails.

These might seem like trivial or nonsensical side points, but it really is the crux of everything. Co-operation is spontaneous government. Only a system where cooperation and coercion are forbidden can be truly called anarchy.

This was kind of my original point though. Anarchy (at least as described on the Wikipedia page anarchism) is more like a type of government, and not like a lack. It's "nonhieracrchical, voluntary, non-state" government but government none the less.

[Dukasaur]

No, co-operation is NOT government. Government is the exploitation of people by an armed gang which compels them to obey its dictates. Co-operation is people working together willingly.

Its the existence of governance that determines when something is government or not. There is economic governance: when two people agree to trade rather than just pillaging, they are governing the allocation of resources. There is familial governance, as already discussed in this thread. There is church governance. Many even speak about mental governance where the rational mind over-rides and thereby governs the baser instincts.

Just like a truck governor resists the natural impulse of the vehicle/driver, anything which leads to less entropy in a system is government. Built a fence today? You just exhibited autocratic government over the state of the wood and nails.

These might seem like trivial or nonsensical side points, but it really is the crux of everything. Co-operation is spontaneous government. Only a system where cooperation and coercion are forbidden can be truly called anarchy.

This was kind of my original point though. Anarchy (at least as described on the Wikipedia page anarchism) is more like a type of government, and not like a lack. It's "nonhieracrchical, voluntary, non-state" government but government none the less.

This is the kind of semantic problem that does more to illustrate the limitations of language than to illustrate the subject at hand.

Using that kind of definition of government, anything is "government". Look! I just governed this bottle of water and made it stand vertically on my desk! When definitions are broadened so that they can include anything, they are effectively useless.

Luckily, a solution to the conundrum is already included within your post.

We can use the term "governance" to cover the broader meaning. We can restrict the term "government" to its more narrow meaning: a group of people who exercise coercive force over others within a specific geographically-defined area. That way, both concepts can be discussed without ambiguity.

[Thorthoth]

This is the kind of semantic problem that does more to illustrate the limitations of language than to illustrate the subject at hand.

Using that kind of definition of government, anything is "government". Look! I just governed this bottle of water and made it stand vertically on my desk! When definitions are broadened so that they can include anything, they are effectively useless.

Luckily, a solution to the conundrum is already included within your post.

We can use the term "governance" to cover the broader meaning. We can restrict the term "government" to its more narrow meaning: a group of people who exercise coercive force over others within a specific geographically-defined area. That way, both concepts can be discussed without ambiguity.

So then using your finagle, the U.S. has no government because we are a democracy, self-ruled by ''we, the people''.

And if you don't want to include the U.S. because you know that, in truth, there is a definite power hierarchy in America, then you can't deny it for any group that has some sort of hierarchic control, including primitive tribes and nuclear family groups.

And don't even start describing some idealized quasi-utopian group the functions ''anarchically'' without government. All those hippy types end up getting led by some kind of Manson/Jim Jones/Pinecone in the

By the way, it is acceptable to use the word 'govern' for the operation/manipulation of inanimate/non-living objects, the meaning would be accurately analogous to the government of humans.

[tzor]

So then using your finagle, the U.S. has no government because we are a democracy, self-ruled by ''we, the people''.

But we are not a "Democracy" ... the US is a "Democratic Republic."

Generally in the United States there are many levels of Government
Village
Town
County / Parish
State
Federal

Now the question of whether a true democracy actually collapses into anarchy and then into tyranny is a fascinating element of the study of history.

[Symmetry]

So then using your finagle, the U.S. has no government because we are a democracy, self-ruled by ''we, the people''.

But we are not a "Democracy" ... the US is a "Democratic Republic."

Generally in the United States there are many levels of Government
Village
Town
County / Parish
State
Federal

Now the question of whether a true democracy actually collapses into anarchy and then into tyranny is a fascinating element of the study of history.

Even you sound bored by the idea- like a kid who has to come up with a concluding sentence to a history paper he only researched on wikipedia.

[Thorthoth]

So then using your finagle, the U.S. has no government because we are a democracy, self-ruled by ''we, the people''.

But we are not a "Democracy" ... the US is a "Democratic Republic."

Generally in the United States there are many levels of Government
Village
Town
County / Parish
State
Federal

Now the question of whether a true democracy actually collapses into anarchy and then into tyranny is a fascinating element of the study of history.

Even you sound bored by the idea- like a kid who has to come up with a concluding sentence to a history paper he only researched on wikipedia.

Symbo, don't tell me I'm bored, just because my argument skewers St Dicktasaur's nonsensea.. and also just because you can't help but being boring.

[Symmetry]

Symbo, don't tell me I'm bored.

Reading isn't your strong point tonight.

[Thorthoth]

Symbo, don't tell me I'm bored.

Reading isn't your strong point tonight.

What are you trying to not to say now? Your dense obfuscation is just more intellectual dishonesty. Basically you're just a liar.

[tzor]

Even you sound bored by the idea- like a kid who has to come up with a concluding sentence to a history paper he only researched on wikipedia.

I'm not bored. Entropy always is fascinating. Political entropy even more so. But if you aren't detached you might remember that as a result of this fascinating process PEOPLE FUCKING DIE. MILLIONS OF THEM. All those people in Venezuela ? They are fucking starving to death while their fucking army has their weapons pointed at them.

[Symmetry]

Even you sound bored by the idea- like a kid who has to come up with a concluding sentence to a history paper he only researched on wikipedia.

I'm not bored. Entropy always is fascinating. Political entropy even more so. But if you aren't detached you might remember that as a result of this fascinating process PEOPLE FUCKING DIE. MILLIONS OF THEM. All those people in Venezuela ? They are fucking starving to death while their fucking army has their weapons pointed at them.

Entropy is universal. Applying a rule of physics to an abstract concept like politics is always gonna be dodgy.

a true democracy actually collapses into anarchy and then into tyranny is a fascinating element of the study of history.

Could you explain how this is the case in your example of Venezuela?

[DoomYoshi]

Well, I'm bored with this topic.

[Bernie Sanders]

Even you sound bored by the idea- like a kid who has to come up with a concluding sentence to a history paper he only researched on wikipedia.

I'm not bored. Entropy always is fascinating. Political entropy even more so. But if you aren't detached you might remember that as a result of this fascinating process PEOPLE FUCKING DIE. MILLIONS OF THEM. All those people in Venezuela ? They are fucking starving to death while their fucking army has their weapons pointed at them.

Venezuela? You advising Trump? There's many countries more fuked up than Venezuela.

Silly right-wing nut jobs.

[tzor]

Could you explain how this is the case in your example of Venezuela?

Venezuela is a communist state not a democratic one. Athens is probably a better classic example.

By the way, the notion that tyranny comes from democracy is a notion first espoused by Plato, so it's not some new idea.

[tzor]

There's many countries more fuked up than Venezuela.

Name one. I can't think of a single one that is out of toilet paper.

Venezuela: How a rich country collapsed

Venezuela is running out of food. Hospitals are overcrowded with sick children while doctors don't have enough medicine or X-ray machines. Electricity isn't guaranteed.

For several years, Maduro has had a stark choice: Pay down debts to China, Russia and foreign investors -- or buy food and medicine from abroad.
He has chosen to pay the bills. The result: Starving Venezuelans and soaring deaths in hospitals. Food shortages are so severe that the average Venezuelan living in extreme poverty lost 19 pounds last year, according to a national poll.
"There are people in Venezuela who are literally starving. This is apocalyptic stuff," says Eric Farnsworth, vice president at the Council of the Americas, a business organization. "I would call Venezuela a failing state."

Venezuela ships in food primarily from Brazil, Colombia and Mexico because the government stopped cultivating its rich farmland years ago.
For the first five months of this year, food exports from those countries to Venezuela were down 61% from the same period in 2015, according to Panjiva, a research firm.
Medical shortages are worse: 756 women died during and shortly after childbirth last year, a 76% increase from 2015, according to a rare release of government records that Maduro condemned.
Nearly 11,500 infants died in 2016, a 30% rise from the prior year. Malaria cases jumped to 240,000, a 76% rise from 2015.
"Even at the hospital there is still no food for the patients," says Dr. Huniades Urbina-Medina, head of pediatrics at Hospital de Niños J.M. de los Rios, a children's hospital in Caracas. "We still don't have medicines, X-rays, CT scans -- nothing."
It's not just food and medicine. Venezuelans sometimes must ration electricity and water during droughts.

I suppose you could mention North Korea, hey isn't that another member of the Great Chinese Empire Franchise?

[Symmetry]

Could you explain how this is the case in your example of Venezuela?

Venezuela is a communist state not a democratic one. Athens is probably a better classic example.

By the way, the notion that tyranny comes from democracy is a notion first espoused by Plato, so it's not some new idea.

Hey, you brought up Venezuela as your example.

Plato wouldn't be my go to guy for an ideal form of governance (ideal, get it?). Mine would allow poetry, for example. Just because an idea is old, doesn't mean it's good, Tzor.

[tzor]

Hey, you brought up Venezuela as your example.

I brought it up as an example of people starving and when people starve I do care. More importantly, I brought it up in the argument for entropy, from tyranny to death. I didn't mention "democracy" here. You did.

Even you sound bored by the idea- like a kid who has to come up with a concluding sentence to a history paper he only researched on wikipedia.

I'm not bored. Entropy always is fascinating. Political entropy even more so. But if you aren't detached you might remember that as a result of this fascinating process PEOPLE FUCKING DIE. MILLIONS OF THEM. All those people in Venezuela ? They are fucking starving to death while their fucking army has their weapons pointed at them.

You are more of the whinny college professor looking for the stupid misspelling to make you feel intellectually superior and I'm looking at the dead people with righteous indignation.