Are there any history at all Anarchism is successful?
>>810332
>all scientific and artistic achievements made by people living under a state can be credited to the existence of the state
>all the best examples of idea X vs. all the worst examples of idea Y prove that X is better than Y
>>810356
Where are you getting that premise from?
>living under a state makes you statist
Anarchism is stupid but wow, this is a low quality bait image.
>>810365
That image, obviously. It clearly implies that Van Gogh's work is a product of statism.
The Roman Republic was anarchist, kind off.
>>810361
>Republic
>Anarchism
Pick one
>>810391
How?
>>810399
It didn't had a State with permanent functions of government and bureaucracy.
Of course, there were offices, but these were just temporary. Mostly society (at least the rich, landowning part) governed itself.
>>810332
Stirner was not an anarchist
he barely even proposed a political system,although he did engage in political criticism his philosophical proposals mostly have to do with ethics , not politics
at some level he may have even opposed anarchists on the same basis that he opposed commies
>statism is a spook
>>810398
monarchy desu
>>810373
I don't see why that's objectionable. Van Gogh lived in a state. His work is a product of state-based life. He may not have been a full corporatist but it seems accurate to say that his participation in a state influenced his art.
>>810411
>It didn't had a State with permanent functions of government and bureaucracy.
Why should these and only these criteria determine whether or not something is a state?
>>810440
>Why should these and only these criteria determine whether or not something is a state?
Because otherwise we fall into childish "every chain of obedience I don't like is a State"
>>810332
I don't really understand your question. What do you mean?
>>810440
>his work is a product of state based life
We have no reason to think that in a parallel universe where 19th century Netherlands was anarchist, Van Gogh wouldn't have painted Starry Night.
w i n n i n g
>>810411
So, the US republic isn't a state?
>>810461
He would have been French instead.
>>810480
It could be argued to be between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, which established a permanent bureaucracy, albeit a very limited one until FDR.
>>810514
And in what way did the Romans not have permanent bureaucracy?
>>810524
During the Republic all offices were temporarily held, even "dictator". There wasn't a different "State" entity with different interests than society.
>>810446
>"every chain of obedience I don't like is a State"
You must have a very simplistic worldview if you can only conceive of bureaucratic states.
>>810461
That isn't my point at all. We have no reason to come to conclusions about the actual world from counterfactual statements about possible worlds. Are you trolling, or are you actually everything that's wrong with the Left?
>>810582
>What was the Pontifex
>>810589
The College of Pontiffs was a merely religious institution.
>>810373
take off your trip pls
Successful by what standards? Hunter-gatherers and pastorals life styles seem to mostly be quite comfy.
>>810623
>merely religious
You know the various functions religion served in the ancient world, right? Were the Egyptian priests 'merely' religious figures? You're drawing far too clean a distinction between the religious and the political for an account of the ancient world.
>>810332
>ayn rand
>anarchist
No.
eveything is anarchy. anarchy leads to people behaving according to their culture. thus wherever the culture leads is also anarchy. if the culture is of master-slave morality it will create vast governments and tyrannies. yes even totalitarian dictatorships with large bureaucracies is also anarchy. everything is anarchy. you cannot institute a society with anarchy, for to institute it upon others requires archy.
>>810870
What
>>810332
there is nothing to be proud of in giant architectural wonders built to serve an elite. these buildings are nothing more than monuments to the slavery of the people who built them and the slave culture of the people living in that area.
>>810440
Then it is so that every act of mass death is also the product of statism. As such, I am fully within my rights to blame the bubonic plague on statism.
>>810897
take off your trip pls
>>810332
>Stirner was an anarchist
>>810908
>Anything that a state does is a product of statism
This is actually a trivial assertion but anarchists can't understand this.
>>810332
>citing Rawls as a good philosopher
>>811614
John Rawls' popularity doesn't make sense to me. Why did A Theory of Justice get so big?
>>811618
I don't know exactly, but it was surely paraded by hoards of leftists.
>>811630
>I don't know exactly
This is the only answer I ever get. When I look into it the only thing that makes sense is the international Jewish conspiracy but I really don't want to believe that.
>>811646
Your only choice might be to talk to a moral/political philosopher who was around at the time of its publication.
>>811614
>Citing philosophy
>>811660
I'm studying with one this semester. He's so analytic that he refuses to discuss Rawls' personal life. The only thing we're allowed to discuss is the text of A Theory of Justice or other texts in the analytic tradition relating to justice, because of the limitations of the class but also because of his personal feelings regarding the irrelevance of a thinker's personality in relation to their ideas. It's very frustrating because he alludes to the cult of personality Rawls had every week in seminar but he always explicitly refuses to elaborate on it.
>>811677
That's totally inane. I suppose knowing about a philosopher's personality could influence how you view their philosophy itself, but if it does and you are unable to control it you are not really fit for philosophy.
>>811661
>>811694
It's offputting, to be honest. I'm a senior and I've completed all the classes I need to take for my philosophy major except one (not the one he's teaching) and it's frustrating, since my primary major is history, to be limited like this.
I think Hegel has a good point about the retrospective/retroactive nature of philosophical truth. We won't know the big deal about Rawls till a theory comes along that replaces the difference principle, or Nozick's libertarianism or whatever else dominates this discourse.
