Is Anarchism a valuable political ideology?

[dust1n]

Details?

 

[Mathematician]

Yes, if the anarchist doesn't confuse government and the state as inseparable entities. In fact I would argue that anarchism is much more about striving to limit the exercise of authority than achieving complete independence. At a certain point it requires more external interference to establish an order than it does to just let things be.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Anarchism is the antithesis of Cooperation and social cohesion.

Governments of all forms are the attempt to achieve more as a group than is possible with an equal number of individuals.

Almost certainly, all governments restrict the ability of individuals to please them selves in what they are able to do.

A society based on anarchy has never achieved anything. They do not even satisfy the individualist, because other individuals make even worse opponents than governments

 

[Onkara]

Anarchism is more organised than it is portrayed. The difficulty Anarchism faced in the past was not community crime but rather the desire of a few to rule the majority, often with repression and poverty.

Anarchism today would face a much harder challenged both economically and technically. In my opinion, for the likes of Hospitals and scientific advancement there has to be a cousin to support those dedicated to those professions. Not that those professions add any more value that a farmer cultivating food for the community, but rather there has too be cultivation of food done on their behalf, and this leads to complication.

As it is clearly not above man's ability to manage and run organised communities and systems, these systems must almost be in place first in order to run themselves. For any advancement, there needs to be energy and dedication beyond the additional daily survival or running of any system. This is where capitalism shows rapid advancement where the left wing ideologies struggle.

 

[Falvlun]

Anarchism has always struck me as something every teenager thinks is cool, but doesn't really work or accomplish much in practice.

 

[Flow]

I like anarchy. Its the antithesis of morality. I think that if we were all Anarchist, the world would be better. If you want to know why I say this, go to the Taoism DIR and look at my threads.

 

[JMorris]

Anarchism is the antithesis of Cooperation and social cohesion.

Governments of all forms are the attempt to achieve more as a group than is possible with an equal number of individuals.

Almost certainly, all governments restrict the ability of individuals to please them selves in what they are able to do.

A society based on anarchy has never achieved anything. They do not even satisfy the individualist, because other individuals make even worse opponents than governments

my answer is no. and Terry's post explains why

 

[JMorris]

Anarchism has always struck me as something every teenager thinks is cool, but doesn't really work or accomplish much in practice.

this too

 

[A-ManESL]

The overall impact of the state on the people is harmful. The raison d'etre of the state is that it is an instrument of serving the people. But in the name of moulding the state into a suitable instrument of serving people, the state demands acquiescence from them. This creates a paradoxical situation where most citizens are alienated from the state and at the same time attached to it which is demoralising and dangerous.

Regards.

 

[Alceste]

I disagree with the definitions of anarchy so far proposed. There's nothing in the concept of rejecting state or government authority that precludes voluntary cooperation and consensus-driven community planning and there's no reason an anarchist can't be moral.

Teenagers natural anarchists but I think there's more to it than "cool"-ness. (In fact, it is much "cooler" to accept authority unquestioningly as long as it's the authority of your peers). Teens are in a stage when it is necessary to question and often reject the authority of the adults in their lives in order to become adults themselves.

Anyway, you can't be very Taoish without being an anarchist.

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

(S. Mitchell pseudo-translation)

 

[dust1n]

Anarchism has always struck me as something every teenager thinks is cool, but doesn't really work or accomplish much in practice.

That's why so many Spaniards died in the thirties for it.

 

[dust1n]

Anarchism is the antithesis of Cooperation and social cohesion.

Really..

 

[dust1n]

I disagree with the definitions of anarchy so far proposed. There's nothing in the concept of rejecting state or government authority that precludes voluntary cooperation and consensus-driven community planning and there's no reason an anarchist can't be moral.

Basically.

Anyway, you can't be very Taoish without being an anarchist.

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

(S. Mitchell pseudo-translation)

Beautiful. I like her translation, especially chapter 17:

When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!"

 

[Wandered Off]

I think it requires an ethical, educated, and responsible populace to be successful. It also requires a distinct absence of people with authoritarian personalities, which is the primary reason I doubt it will ever be widely implemented.

 

[Alceste]

Beautiful. I like her translation, especially chapter 17:

When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, "Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!"

Very nice. Mitchell gets a lot of flak for his rendition of the TTC because he takes quite a few liberties to communicate what he feels to be the meaning of each verse rather than the literal translation, and because he's more of a Zennist than a Daoist, but his TTC is poetry (he is a poet, after all) and I'm quite fond of it.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I believe that if humanity were allowed to do as it pleases we would all be at peace, I guess you can call me an anarchist. I'm a strong supporter of the Venus Project, which I guess fits into the definition of anarchy as people in this thread have put it so far. The Venus Project , check it out if you have the time. I believe it is a system that could genuinely work if we all genuinely gave it a chance.

 

[dust1n]

Very nice. Mitchell gets a lot of flak for his rendition of the TTC because he takes quite a few liberties to communicate what he feels to be the meaning of each verse rather than the literal translation, and because he's more of a Zennist than a Daoist, but his TTC is poetry (he is a poet, after all) and I'm quite fond of it.

Hehe - it's just easier to understand for English speakers. Though, my Gia-Fu Feng translation is very different, it's pretty much leading to the same thing:

The very highest is barely known.
Then comes that which people know and love,
Then that which is feared,
Then that which is despised.

Who does not trust enough will not be trusted.

When actions are performed
Without unnecessary speech,
People say, "We did it!"

 

[Alceste]

Hehe - it's just easier to understand for English speakers. Though, my Gia-Fu Feng translation is very different, it's pretty much leading to the same thing:

The very highest is barely known.
Then comes that which people know and love,
Then that which is feared,
Then that which is despised.

Who does not trust enough will not be trusted.

When actions are performed
Without unnecessary speech,
People say, "We did it!"

Yeah. I like Mitchell's better, but Gia Fu Feng is way reputable among picky online Daoists. Personally I think it's pointless to go for a literal translation, since that would go "dao name not dao" etc.

Anyway, kind of a flop for a last post before the big hiatus, but there it is. I will talk to you the old fashioned way from now on.

 

[dust1n]

Yeah. I like Mitchell's better, but Gia Fu Feng is way reputable among picky online Daoists. Personally I think it's pointless to go for a literal translation, since that would go "dao name not dao" etc.

Anyway, kind of a flop for a last post before the big hiatus, but there it is. I will talk to you the old fashioned way from now on.

Haha.. I like a lot of the translations I've read. Of course.. it is the most translated book ever, even for single languages.

I appreciate the good conversation Alceste. I'll talk to you soon.

 

[Mathematician]

On the state level, why not amend the constitution to abolish taxation and implement fees on the use of drivers' licenses, contract creation, tolls, etc.? Later on you then include a provision that allows the government to recognize the legitimacy of certain 'companies' (or alternatively 'governments') who agree to act according to certain specifications in the realm of justice, distribution, prison creation, democratic governance, so on.

It would need to be processed in this order, otherwise the initial government could potentially fund a campaign against the newly created organizations by taxing everyone. Over time as these alternative governments prospered and diversified it would be nigh impossible for any major organization to wage war or act too inappropriately (in the minds of most people) as such actions would not be cost effective.

Three-fourths of all American households already donate to charity each year knowing that their tax money is provide basic security for children, the poor, and the elderly. These 'competing governments' can simultaneously act as charities and even advertise their services for the poor to make their premises more appealing to potential consumers.