What are the philosophical virtues of Anarchism?
What are the philosophical arguments against it?
No /pol/ please.
>>881242
don't vote organise to take industry
>>881242
>What are the philosophical virtues of Anarchism?
It assumes that people are basically decent and rational, and treats them accordingly.
>What are the philosophical arguments against it?
It assumes that people are basically decent and rational, but they're not.
The biggest argument I can think of against it is that any functioning social organization a group of anarchists create will be a pseudo-state. It all comes down to a few simple concerns.
1. Large numbers of people living together means some people's wills being denied for the benefit of other wills.
2. A fully voluntary society will be rendered redundant by any population growth whatsofreaking ever.
Even if everyone signs on and says "This is the kind of social organization I want", you'll have people in 100 years saying "I didn't sign shit"
The closest thing to a functioning anarchist society would be a series of communes whose only punishment for serious crime is banishment, and ignoring the massive reasons that would suck, I'm convinced any working arrangement set up in such a manner would be effectively identical to a state.
The question isn't whether the state is desirable, its whether its inevitable.
>>881265
I was kinda trying to avoid the political aspect of the debate, i.e "would it work in practicality?" and more focus on what kinda philosophical principles support / undermine the idea of a society of free men living without authorities determining their behavior.
>>881259 says people are not decent and rational, and that they need a government to contain their inherent indecency and irrationality, for example. I don't agree with him, but that's more along the line of the discussion I wanted.
Have any of you dudes read any anarchist philosophy? I haven't, but I'd like to, I just don't know where to start, because so much of what I find is more along the lines of political pamphlets trying to propagandize a movement or party.
>>881272
Asking about a political system while avoiding politics is a rather silly thing to do. You should already know the entire 'philosophical' side of it.
If you desire total freedom, over any and all other concerns, up to and including personal safety and a functioning economy, then anarchism fits your value-system.
>>881281
Anarchism is as much a philosophy about man's role in society, and whether it's morally justified for one man to rule over another, as it's a practical system of laws and regulations, man.
>>881286
Given all value-systems ultimately rest on axioms, "morally justifiable" is context-dependent on the moral system you're referring to. Its self-referential.
>>881294
Jesus christ you're a blast at parties huh?
>>881297
Well what do you expect, I'm statist scum. Its my job to come in and ruin things for everyone.
>>881297
This is my favorite form of surrender
>>881310
>conversations on the internet = war
>>881297
Not him but there are two alternatives he could have said.
1. He could have said what was moral under his own system.
2. He could have picked some system other than his own and analyzed it from in there'
Asking "is this moral" is a really fucking stupid question, so you get a disapointing answer. A less stupid question is to ask "Is this moral under X system?" or "Is this moral under YOUR system" the latter question is also inappropriate for 4chan because of the nature of anonymous message boards, no one cares about the moral systems of some random anon.
>>881242
Anarchism is either incoherent or a semantical clap-trap. There is no such thing as a stateless society, especially by the definition of 'state' that anarchists usually use.
In short, a society of people who inevitably or even just potentially have wills that are in conflict with one another, will result one way or another in one or more of those parties being divorced of their will. The separation will be by force (by definition) and will constitute a 'state' and no amount of semantic acrobatics involving "DROs" will change that.
Anarchism requires the almost complete subjugation of irrationality by rationality.
Also for anarchy to work, pretty much everybody would have to be on board.
I think Anarcho-capitalism has some merit but human nature really throws a wrench in the gears. I think realistically it has as much merit as communism but is a little easier to understand for your average joe as they are more familiar with market ideas than shit like post-scarcity and labour theory of value.
That being said, I actively advocate for the gradual non-aggressive destruction of the state and conform to the Non-aggression principle even if I don' think that the entire ideology is thoroughly consistent.
Assumes that a particular individual advantage somehow doesn't inhibit collective or another individual's advantage.
