I will have a better post coming up but I want to spill that conversation elsewhere.
So, is anarchy a form of tyranny? If not, is better or worse than tyranny?
I don't think it's identical, but it does share many common traits with tyranny and is probably also worse. Darwin said any form of government is better than none. Peter and Paul wrote about obeying governments. Kant and Hobbes wrote about it being a state of war etc.
Symmetry wrote:*Buys popcorn* *Awaits the coming of the better post*
Why is popcorn so expensive? And that butter dispenser that American cinemas have is just weird.
Sym would probably prefer a butt dispenser....
Stop being tyrannical! If Sym wants a butt dispenser that's his choice not yours.
Bernie may be fine with Guy Fawkes mask-wearing anarchists putting hot butt all over America's popcorn...However, I AM NOT!
This is the final time I'm saying this Thorth, I'm not instagramming you a picture of me in a Rush Limbaugh mask sitting naked on popcorn. No matter how many times you ask, and in how many oblique ways, I am not signing up for instagram.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Symmetry wrote:*Buys popcorn* *Awaits the coming of the better post*
Why is popcorn so expensive? And that butter dispenser that American cinemas have is just weird.
Sym would probably prefer a butt dispenser....
Stop being tyrannical! If Sym wants a butt dispenser that's his choice not yours.
Bernie may be fine with Guy Fawkes mask-wearing anarchists putting hot butt all over America's popcorn...However, I AM NOT!
This is the final time I'm saying this Thorth, I'm not instagramming you a picture of me in a Rush Limbaugh mask sitting naked on popcorn. No matter how many times you ask, and in how many oblique ways, I am not signing up for instagram.
Symmetry wrote:*Buys popcorn* *Awaits the coming of the better post*
Why is popcorn so expensive? And that butter dispenser that American cinemas have is just weird.
Sym would probably prefer a butt dispenser....
Stop being tyrannical! If Sym wants a butt dispenser that's his choice not yours.
Bernie may be fine with Guy Fawkes mask-wearing anarchists putting hot butt all over America's popcorn...However, I AM NOT!
This is the final time I'm saying this Thorth, I'm not instagramming you a picture of me in a Rush Limbaugh mask sitting naked on popcorn. No matter how many times you ask, and in how many oblique ways, I am not signing up for instagram.
Ha! any pics from Symbo would be Instagrim.
Urgh- I thought that would be the final time- no, I'm still not signing up for instagram. You're being weird Thorth.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
with the first group of people in the walking dead they were trapped in an anarchy state. When they met the last group of people, that group was in tyranny i believe.So in my opinion anarchy would be better.
Anyway, its easiest to start with the Christian perspective. The Greek, English, German and American perspectives will have to come later.
I was reading City of God recently and came across an argument that surprised me not because it is surprising, but rather I found it in an unfamiliar place. Here it is, book 4, chapter 4:
Chapter 4.— How Like Kingdoms Without Justice are to Robberies.
Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor."
It appears Augustine is arguing for anarchy here but for the first phrase "justice being taken away". His argument is best summed up in chapter 3. If the unjust impose evils on the just, it's not a punishment but rather a test of virtue. Extrapolating a bit, that would mean that it isn't justice, so basically anarchy.
Here's a cool quote from him that I came across while researching: "For there is nothing so social by nature, so unsocial by its corruption, as this race."
Below is a lengthier excerpt in which Augustine explains that sin is the cause of servitude. Perhaps not directly applicable but it's an interesting read on the nature of government.
Thomas Aquinas picks up this point but indicates that government isn't a result of sin but rather a result of human nature (part 1, question 96, article 4):
In Paradisio, there is another interesting observation:
I said: ‘No, since I know it is impossible for Nature to fall short of what is needed.’ And he again: ‘Now, say, would it be worse for man if he were not a citizen, on earth, but left to his own sufficiency?’ ‘Yes,’ I replied, ‘and I do not need to ask the reason.’ ‘And can that be, unless men live various lives below, and with various tasks?
Anyways, that's enough research for right now. I may or not pick this back up depending on if people actually care about it. The Christian perspective has always sought to explain using modern philosophy two major quotes:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
and
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
DY- one of the main forms of criticism for your kind of academics is that you're an apologist- someone who has a conclusion, and looks for evidence, rather than someone who uses evidence to come to a conclusion.
I really like that you use sources- Dante and Augustine though? They're very different. I'd be careful using them as equivalent simply because they're old.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Symmetry wrote:DY- one of the main forms of criticism for your kind of academics is that you're an apologist- someone who has a conclusion, and looks for evidence, rather than someone who uses evidence to come to a conclusion.
I really like that you use sources- Dante and Augustine though? They're very different. I'd be careful using them as equivalent simply because they're old.
They're not equivalent, they just both happen to write on the same subjects and both from a predominantly Christian perspective. They both came to startlingly different views on the nature of Sin and its relation to law however.
While I may be an apologist, in this case I am looking for any mention of anarchy, and they always seem to point the same way.
I used to take the mrswdk dictionaryesque definition of anarchy at face value. Then when that other discussion took place I paused for a minute and realized something. I have never heard anyone both a)use anarchy with that definition in mind and b) use internally consistent logic in a systematic way. What I mean is that many people will claim that anarchy is a lack of government, or a null hypothesis but if you follow their logical trail (if they have one) then really they believe that anarchy is a state of government, that also is a null hypothesis. The more I thought about it, the more I realized this thread had to happen. It sucks that the original perpetrators are either absent or trolling, mais c'est la vie.
Symmetry wrote:DY- one of the main forms of criticism for your kind of academics is that you're an apologist- someone who has a conclusion, and looks for evidence, rather than someone who uses evidence to come to a conclusion.
I really like that you use sources- Dante and Augustine though? They're very different. I'd be careful using them as equivalent simply because they're old.
They're not equivalent, they just both happen to write on the same subjects and both from a predominantly Christian perspective. They both came to startlingly different views on the nature of Sin and its relation to law however.
While I may be an apologist, in this case I am looking for any mention of anarchy, and they always seem to point the same way.
Dante was partly writing from a Christian perspective, but also obviously writing from a very political perspective. Some of the people he mentioned in his Inferno weren't even dead in when he wrote the Comedia. They were just people from opposing political factions.
Dante suggested that they had died and been sent to hell while demons took their place on earth.
I think what you're missing here, as an apologist, is that simply being Christian doesn't a reliable source make. Even Dante was a troublesome Christian for many other Christians at the time- his first guide was Virgil, after all- a virtuous pagan poet.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
DoomYoshi wrote:I used to take the mrswdk dictionaryesque definition of anarchy at face value. Then when that other discussion took place I paused for a minute and realized something. I have never heard anyone both a)use anarchy with that definition in mind and b) use internally consistent logic in a systematic way. What I mean is that many people will claim that anarchy is a lack of government, or a null hypothesis but if you follow their logical trail (if they have one) then really they believe that anarchy is a state of government, that also is a null hypothesis. The more I thought about it, the more I realized this thread had to happen. It sucks that the original perpetrators are either absent or trolling, mais c'est la vie.
I think I understand this argument better. Anarchism doesn't have to be some kind of opposite of tyranny, nor does it have to be an "absence" of something. It can be a thing in it's own right.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
DoomYoshi wrote:I used to take the mrswdk dictionaryesque definition of anarchy at face value. Then when that other discussion took place I paused for a minute and realized something. I have never heard anyone both a)use anarchy with that definition in mind and b) use internally consistent logic in a systematic way. What I mean is that many people will claim that anarchy is a lack of government, or a null hypothesis but if you follow their logical trail (if they have one) then really they believe that anarchy is a state of government, that also is a null hypothesis. The more I thought about it, the more I realized this thread had to happen. It sucks that the original perpetrators are either absent or trolling, mais c'est la vie.
I think I understand this argument better. Anarchism doesn't have to be some kind of opposite of tyranny, nor does it have to be an "absence" of something. It can be a thing in it's own right.
All functioning interactive groups of people will develop norms of behavior and for the norms to be predictive they will become codified into rules and enforced, at least informally.
Anarchy of any sort can only be maintained in states of non-contact or conflict, likely both in alternating pattern.
Though indeed, even a lone individual must impose some degree of autoarchy upon himself.
There's really 3 questions in one here, so I'll try to break them down.
Is anarchy a type of government?
I don't think anarchy can be systematically defined as anything other than a type/form/state of government. In all categorical treatments of types of government, anarchy appears as a case, albeit a special case in many instances, a case nonetheless. For example, if you describe government by the ruler/ruled ratio (x), anarchy is the case where x = 1. If you describe government by the command/obedience ratio (y), anarchy is the special case y = 1. Curiously it could be said that tyranny is the government where y approaches 1. I don't know of anyone who thinks of government in these terms, I'm just trying to illustrate a point. I think intuitively most people ignore that governments are ratios at all and instead focus only on the rulers and the commands. However "government cannot consist of governors alone, any more than education can consist of teachers alone." This digression aside, I can't think of any way to describe anarchy not in the very same governmental terms that anarchy purports to be a lack of. To see what I mean, ask yourself the questions: "where does sovereignty come from in this scenario, where does freedom come from, where do the laws come from?". It will very quickly become clear that anarchy is a form of government, not a lack thereof.
There is also the case of the mental impossibility of understanding anarchy (as Thorthoth FPed with). Let's say there was no government for a day. We know that people will spontaneously form government. So unless there is a tyrannical force stopping these spontaneous acts of governance anarchy is, at least mentally and probably in practice, impossible.
As a final proof, the civilization games treat anarchy as a temporary type of government.
Having established anarchy as a type of government, is anarchy-type better or worse than tyranny-type in effect?
That's exactly what this thread is designed to tease out. I think the general consensus is worse.
Is anarchy-type fundamentally the same as tyranny-type?
I think this is the question mrswdk was focused on, some sort of Platonic ideal anarchy compared to some Platonic ideal tyranny. I doubt this can be shown, so in a way the dictionary definition will always stick around.
DoomYoshi wrote:I used to take the mrswdk dictionaryesque definition of anarchy at face value. Then when that other discussion took place I paused for a minute and realized something. I have never heard anyone both a)use anarchy with that definition in mind and b) use internally consistent logic in a systematic way. What I mean is that many people will claim that anarchy is a lack of government, or a null hypothesis but if you follow their logical trail (if they have one) then really they believe that anarchy is a state of government, that also is a null hypothesis. The more I thought about it, the more I realized this thread had to happen. It sucks that the original perpetrators are either absent or trolling, mais c'est la vie.
I think I understand this argument better. Anarchism doesn't have to be some kind of opposite of tyranny, nor does it have to be an "absence" of something. It can be a thing in it's own right.
All functioning interactive groups of people will develop norms of behavior and for the norms to be predictive they will become codified into rules and enforced, at least informally.
Anarchy of any sort can only be maintained in states of non-contact or conflict, likely both in alternating pattern.
Though indeed, even a lone individual must impose some degree of autoarchy upon himself.
Didn't think you were so akin to Marx in your teleology.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
anarchy literally means 'no government'. It is by definition the absence of government not a form of government. At least between the individuals or groups in the anarchical state Though, not necessarily within the individuals or groups. War is generally anarchic between the opposing sides though often tyrannical (or at least militaristic) within those forces. Terrorism is a form of war and that is why terrorists are often popularly but imprecisely synonymized with anarchists. Yes their could be pacifist anarchists. I suppose their could even be pacifist terrorists... but neither would be very effective or influential.
* Note the diplomatic wing of groups and movements are often called pacifists but that is overblown rhetoric. Gandhi, MLK, etc. always functioned under the implied thread of violence if their demands were not met.
@ Sym, Marxism is not synonymous with basic definition, logic and game theory.
Thorthoth wrote:anarchy literally means 'no government'. It is by definition the absence of government not a form of government. At least between the individuals or groups in the anarchical state Though, not necessarily within the individuals or groups. War is generally anarchic between the opposing sides though often tyrannical (or at least militaristic) within those forces. Terrorism is a form of war and that is why terrorists are often popularly but imprecisely synonymized with anarchists. Yes their could be pacifist anarchists. I suppose their could even be pacifist terrorists... but neither would be very effective or influential.
* Note the diplomatic wing of groups and movements are often called pacifists but that is overblown rhetoric. Gandhi, MLK, etc. always functioned under the implied thread of violence if their demands were not met.
@ Sym, Marxism is not synonymous with basic definition, logic and game theory.
When you finish typing up your notes, feel free to post an argument.
Coherent sentences nice Not sure if understands piss-take War is not generally anarchic? @ Thorth? Maybe make Twitter account- no, sound like moron
Last edited by Symmetry on Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Thorthoth wrote:anarchy literally means 'no government'. It is by definition the absence of government not a form of government.
I started this thread because you took the exact opposite position. Do I need to provide links? Also, you can't just ignore all the points I made and then resort to the dictionary definition when my point is that the dictionary definition is wrong (or at least it's not systematically applied and doesn't follow internally consistent logic).
Thorthoth wrote:anarchy literally means 'no government'. It is by definition the absence of government not a form of government.
I started this thread because you took the exact opposite position. Do I need to provide links? Also, you can't just ignore all the points I made and then resort to the dictionary definition when my point is that the dictionary definition is wrong (or at least it's not systematically applied and doesn't follow internally consistent logic).
He can definitely ignore all the points you made. It's his thing.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
I just already gave both the definition of anarchy and my interpretation of the meaning in real politics. anarchy is when a group or individual is in opposition to law and government either in direct conflict, secretive subversion or if possible in non-contact. The 'anarchist group will still have it's own rules and government, almost certainly hierarchical even if some democratic practices (i.e. voting) are incorporated.
My position has not changed. A Tyrant may well perceive his opposition as anarchistic, though terms such as 'criminal', 'terrorist', 'enemy' or 'scofflaw' may be more accurate.
Some people with anti-government bias interpret small, relatively simple social constructs as anarchistic, but even a group as small as a family unit will have rules and hierarchy. The situation may be 'utopian' (or not...) but it is not anarchistic.
I just already gave both the definition of anarchy and my interpretation of the meaning in real politics. anarchy is when a group or individual is in opposition to law and government either in direct conflict, secretive subversion or if possible in non-contact. The 'anarchist group will still have it's own rules and government, almost certainly hierarchical even if some democratic practices (i.e. voting) are incorporated.
My position has not changed. A Tyrant may well perceive his opposition as anarchistic, though terms such as 'criminal', 'terrorist', 'enemy' or 'scofflaw' may be more accurate.
Some people with anti-government bias interpret small, relatively simple social constructs as anarchistic, but even a group as small as a family unit will have rules and hierarchy. The situation may be 'utopian' (or not...) but it is not anarchistic.
It's a definition of anarchism so banal as to be inconsequential, or as a essentially so secretive as to be subversive.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
by DoomYoshi on Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:07 pm 
DoomYoshi
2
3
3
