Re: Who have you convinced to vote today?

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

"I do my share of leading, and it is to my close friends, and in an entirely advisory capacity. Were I to go to the polls, I would sadly find that there is no, 'No one gets the office', option, and as an anarchist, I simply can't bring myself to vote for which of the two loathsome human beings will lead. The lesser evil isn't good enough for me, and so, I find that not voting really doesn't change a thing in my life, because I'll always be struggling against the people who think that this or any government really works."

"I just felt a need to play Devil's Advocate, as I so often do. I admire your conviction, and your call to conviction, just not your cause."

[Vekseid]

In times of strife, the greatest evil good people commit to is that of inaction.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

"I'm glad I don't consider myself good, then. However, I don't see myself as inactive, I say my piece, but not by voting. I help the people close to me, and I would watch the world burn so long as they, and myself, were safe. I have no problem committing 'evil' against people who would do the same to me given the chance. Give me a gun and tell me you have an army who will march and put down the people who perpetuate these acts of idiocy, and I will stand at your side and fight more viciously than you can imagine. However, give me a voting slip and I will show you a piece of paper that does nothing to cure the evil that is in the masses, not just the government that manipulates them."

"Once again, I do not challenge you, here. Do your piece your way, and so long as you do not bring harm to others, I will cheer you on, at best, and look the other way, at least."

[Vekseid]

Ryuka Tana, you can register your intent to avoid voting for a given office simply by refusing make a selection for that office. Then, at the very least, the discrepancy between the vote and ballot total is plain. There are evil people in this world, and they seek power as they do, but they are not going to make up every name on the ballot.

And if you are not going to do your part to seek out the good souls in this world, there will be no army for you to march with.

On the other hand, if you do, I highly doubt you will find an army necessary.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

"Where I see evil, and where you see evil, are likely quite different. Going to the polls to get handed a voting card/ticket, whatever, and then hand it back, while amusing, isn't much good. Pretty much any person on the ballot constitutes an evil to me, unless their promise to me is that they will get in office and then empty every office of its officials. Show me the politician with that agenda, and you will see me standing first in line to make sure that person gets into office."

"The truth of the matter is, democracy is a pointless endeavor because what MOST people want, is not what's right by default. Voting gives the impression I believe otherwise. I would never wish to compromise my principles like that, not when I can just make the lives of myself and my loved ones easier and happier right now. When those younger than me ask why I didn't do anything, I can, without remorse, say: 'I shouldn't have had to, and when I die, I won't have to worry about it anymore.'"

[Vekseid]

The purpose of organization is so that people are not working at cross purposes, and so that larger tasks than what may be done by a single person may be accomplished. If your intent is to tie your hands in the face of that, then don't let me stop you.

Don't expect me to respect it, either. I think we can have a better future than that.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

"Anarchy is not without order, that is the misconception, it is without rule. In the end, if people cannot govern themselves, the world goes to hell, with or without a government. Government is just an alley by which even more corrupt people can manipulate things. At best, it's something for people to become codependent on, so I'm not so excited to stand by it."

"In the world we live, I would rather live without regrets or remorse, and the best way I can do that, is to just live as I see fit and bypass the idiocy of the government, rather than waiting for the stupidity to stop. This site is likely full of people who are shunned and kicked by the very system that's being supported. People who are downtrodden by the desires of the majority, and if even ONE person exists that is mistreated by the whims of others, something is wrong with the system."

[Vekseid]

I've always been curious.

How do anarchists propose to deal with invaders or manipulators? If there is no means of mass compulsion, how does it stand against those that will apply mass compulsion to it? Anarchic states don't exactly have a history of longevity to them.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

"For me, it is about principle and philosophy, not practicality. If I were going to attempt to implement anarchy, I would do so with violent rule first, destroying government by force and maintaining power in an attempt to keep others from doing the same. However, with that power, I would do nothing more than put down other tyrants, and the entire thing is hypocritical in a way, but I accept that sometimes you must break ideals to keep more important ones."

"However, I would presume, in a more civil sense, anarchy does not submit that there can be no military, merely that the military cannot be run by a governing force. Anarchy puts the onus on the community to function as a whole, without the necessity to be forced. The fact that people will not do what is in the best interest of the whole without a governing body is the very reason why no government system, anarchy included, works anyway. Which is why I support anarchy as the only acceptable solution, but I believe that no solution is feasible without making a fundamental change to society or taking great strides to eradicate the self-destructive nature of humans, violently. The fact that hypocrisy is the only way it can be achieved, is just a testament to how screwed up our species is as a whole."

"Nonetheless, if you are asking me, I don't have any practical answers, just principles. I don't care about practicality, because I'm a philosopher, and anarchy is just the political view that fits my philosophical views. In the end, I am unconcerned with what happens in this life, except that I enjoyed it to the best of my abilities. If I decide that my enjoyment in this life is at an end, I would not hesitate to end this life, because life in and of itself is valueless. If everyone followed my principles, the world would need no government, and so, the best thing I can do is to simply live as I believe is right, and the best way I can save people is to teach them that they need not be saved."

[Vekseid]

Have you ever worked on a committee or other body responsible for making a decision, past say, twenty or thirty people, and seen it come to significant conclusions on its own without someone taking up a leadership role?

I've honestly only seen 'rulerless' societies work up to a hundred or so people. There, the rulers become forces of personality - elected by consent if not officially. Some of them start browbeating people the same way tyrants do, the community fractures, reorganizes, and fractures again until a more organized authority is placed on it so that it can grow further. Or shatters completely.

Saying that you'll just live your life is your right. For me, I see the pressure the current situation puts on a lot of people, and it breaks my heart that I can only help one or two at a time. Helping all of them means attacking the situation from whatever angle I can.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

"It hurts me that I can't help more people, too. Except, I understand its because of most people that I can't help most people, and that is where my sympathies fall short. I have no tolerance for ignorance."

"That's what it comes down to, if people act the way that most people choose to act, I would rather watch the world burn then help it. That it's even a question whether or not all people are equal as a whole, or whether or not it's okay to be gay, bisexual, polygamous, or worship whomever you please... I find those things unconscionable, and there is no hope for society as long as people like that exist."

[Will]

"It hurts me that I can't help more people, too. Except, I understand its because of most people that I can't help most people, and that is where my sympathies fall short. I have no tolerance for ignorance."

"That's what it comes down to, if people act the way that most people choose to act, I would rather watch the world burn then help it. That it's even a question whether or not all people are equal as a whole, or whether or not it's okay to be gay, bisexual, polygamous, or worship whomever you please... I find those things unconscionable, and there is no hope for society as long as people like that exist."

I fail to see how removing government and/or rule from our lives would help this.  The protection and support of minorities by the government is one of its more attractive qualities, I think.  Throw us into anarchy, and a likely result is the oppression of those same minorities.  Do you consider that a negative outcome?

Your posts seem to be tending further from your original point, and closer to a generalized misanthropy.  Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I'm not sure it's debatable in a constructive manner.  Might be better suited for a rant thread.

[mystictiger]

People who are downtrodden by the desires of the majority, and if even ONE person exists that is mistreated by the whims of others, something is wrong with the system

The choice not to adopt a system is in itself a system. The choice not to have a government is as much a regime as any mode of being ruled. Further the choice of no rulership when imposed on a polity will result in people being mistreated by the whims of others. In this sense, anarchism is an 'all or nothing' game. Either everyone wants it, or it is imposed and this imposition renders the choice bad.

On a vaguely related note, I tend to think that order arises spontaneously in complex systems. Order has different meanings in different contexts - in atoms it could mean crystals, or chemical equiliibriums and so on. In terms of people, I think it will always result in some aspect of hierarchy. The best example I can think of of an anarchic system is that of international relations. Although states are technically equally sovereign, it is clear that not all states are equal. We then result in a process of law making by the states that have the resources to threaten, bully, or bribe their fellows.

I find your attitude to people surprising - on the one hand, you have no faith in the people that currently govern you. On the other, if they were equal, you would suddenly have faith in them? I don't think this position can be maintained - either you trust people regardless of their position, or you don't trust them. For anarchy to stay anarchy would require some degree of trust.

It's clear from the above brain-dump that I'm biased against an anarchic rulerless system being able to be preserved as a strict relationship between equals - mostly because no two people are truly the same. We are technically equal before the law, but that doesn't mean that we're in any other sense equals. The 'strong' will always have their way. I therefore regard anarchy as at best a transition state rather than an equilibrium / goal condition.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

  The choice not to adopt a system is in itself a system. The choice not   to have a government is as much a regime as any mode of being ruled.   Further the choice of no rulership when imposed on a polity will result   in people being mistreated by the whims of others. In this sense,   anarchism is an 'all or nothing' game. Either everyone wants it, or it   is imposed and this imposition renders the choice bad.
 

"Sorry, I should have said: ' if even ONE person exists that is mistreated by the whims of others, something is wrong with the world'."

"In turn, you're right, it all comes down to misanthropy. I don't support government because as an established organization, it is corrupt and arrogant. With anarchy, the corruption simply comes from the people, and while that, in and of itself is a problem, at least we aren't giving people the authority to act that way."

I find your attitude to people surprising - on the one hand, you have no faith in the people that currently govern you. On the other, if they were equal, you would suddenly have faith in them? I don't think this position can be maintained - either you trust people regardless of their position, or you don't trust them. For anarchy to stay anarchy would require some degree of trust.

"No, no, I don't have faith in people AT ALL. The important thing I said, is that it is about principle, not practicality. People are equal, not in all ways, but everyone is given strengths to counterbalance their flaws. I'm not going to argue the point of that, because most often, in these sorts of arguments, the argument turns to the fact that there is no proof of that, and I simply don't care. I base my beliefs and principles on observation (which could spiral into just another thing I really hate about people, so I won't say anything there)."

"I avoid political topics and things of that nature because ignorance blinds most people to what I have to say, and even to the most open people, a certain amount of shared understanding must exist. I can't convey my thoughts in mere words, because words are flawed, pointless, and most people, given a chance to argue, will pick and choose which words are important and which are not."

"The end result is, I support anarchy as the only acceptable system. By this, I don't mean it is the most functional system, because it may not be. However, in a world in which NO systems work, I will not support ones that are corrupt. Anarchy, by its very nature, is not, and cannot be, corrupt, because nothing exists to corrupt. Within anarchy, corruption is found in people, and when any people use that corruption to establish tyranny, it is not longer anarchy, therefore anarchy has not been corrupted."

"If you want my solution to our world's problems, you'll find bullets and flames more to my style. I appreciate the idea of Ragnarok, purifying the world by starting over from practically nothing. The best thing I can think to happen to the world is the destruction of mankind, because I have not an ounce of hope that even the majority (even by the tiniest margin, 50.000000001%) will ever be anything less than corrupt and morally misguided or bankrupt altogether."

[mystictiger]

"I avoid political topics and things of that nature because ignorance blinds most people to what I have to say, and even to the most open people, a certain amount of shared understanding must exist. I can't convey my thoughts in mere words, because words are flawed, pointless, and most people, given a chance to argue, will pick and choose which words are important and which are not."

I find this idea troubling - that a thought is incapable of expression means that it cannot be debated or communicated. Which in turn renders this entire thread... somewhat pointless.

[Noelle]

I don't really buy into the whole "ignorance blinds most people to what [you] have to say" argument mostly because there's a huge gap between perceived ignorance of others and negligence in recognizing that your point has been heard, but still not agreed on. I think it's short-sighted and fails to take personal responsibility that it may not just be those you talk to, but a flaw in your own point of view or basic skills of communication, as well. If you're so apt to claim that words are so imperfect, then you need to apply your own rules to yourself...that it's just as likely that you are ignorant and blinded to my -- or anyone else's view as you claim others are to yours.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

I find this idea troubling - that a thought is incapable of expression means that it cannot be debated or communicated. Which in turn renders this entire thread... somewhat pointless.

"See picking and choosing which words. I said, 'I can't convey my thoughts in mere words'... You may not be doing it purposefully, but people choose what they want to hear in my arguments."

I don't really buy into the whole "ignorance blinds most people to what [you] have to say" argument mostly because there's a huge gap between perceived ignorance of others and negligence in recognizing that your point has been heard, but still not agreed on. I think it's short-sighted and fails to take personal responsibility that it may not just be those you talk to, but a flaw in your own point of view or basic skills of communication, as well. If you're so apt to claim that words are so imperfect, then you need to apply your own rules to yourself...that it's just as likely that you are ignorant and blinded to my -- or anyone else's view as you claim others are to yours.

"Funny, because I don't really buy into that because that's often the tactic employed by ignorant people to make my arguments look bad with baseless accusation. You want to see the basis of my accusation of ignorance in human beings, talk to someone, anyone, if you are even paying half the attention you should be, you've got a pretty good chance of seeing it."

"In the end, even if you don't see it that way... well, I don't care... You're just one among many people not worth arguing with, and that's why I'm not going to try to convince you of anything. I made my argument, I don't care if you see it or not, and wasting my time on trying to get you to see it just makes my life that much more miserable before I die. Why would I do that?"

"Truth be told, if my words fall on deaf ears, then I am glad to know that I tried, and that the people who ignore me chose ignorance anyway. Those people will just help the world to its inevitable goal of ridding itself of the bane of human existence. I see the good in every outcome, if you listen, the world gets better, and if you don't, then you'll be a helping hand on our species' way down, and once we're gone, the world still gets better, even if its just a barren wasteland after."

[Noelle]

So what I'm getting out of this is that you believe you have some kind of great and profound insight into the world that is unique to you and that everyone else who doesn't believe/agree with it too is blind and ignorant and not worth talking to.

Good to know.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

"Not unique to me, just hard to find, which is sad, because it's pretty damn easy to gain. Also, I recently had a conversation with a beloved old friend whose values differ greatly from my own, but she understands what is most important, enough that I don't claim ignorance on her part. It's not disagreeing with me that makes people ignorant, it's ignorance."

"Of course, the ignorant would have a lot of reason to discredit me..."

EDIT: "Remember, that to start, I mentioned my respect of Vekseid's position, even if I don't respect his viewpoints."

[Will]

"The end result is, I support anarchy as the only acceptable system. By this, I don't mean it is the most functional system, because it may not be. However, in a world in which NO systems work, I will not support ones that are corrupt. Anarchy, by its very nature, is not, and cannot be, corrupt, because nothing exists to corrupt. Within anarchy, corruption is found in people, and when any people use that corruption to establish tyranny, it is not longer anarchy, therefore anarchy has not been corrupted."

You propose to rid government of corruption by removing government.  That's rather a lot of overkill going on there, don't you think? 

And it could be argued that government is a natural result of people gathering together; you even allude to this when you talk about people going on to establish tyranny.  Government will most likely happen, one way or another.  So, knowing this, why support anarchy?  Because it's somehow more righteous than any other system?  It would cause so much suffering, and then would only transition into another form of government, anyway.  It certainly wouldn't cause the destruction of the human race, as you seem to be implying.  I think calling that righteous is a little hyperbolic, and short-sighted.

You say you would want to protect those close to you.  What about those close to them?  And those close to them?  The world is a gigantic web of people that are close to other people.  If you want to keep the people you care about from suffering, then that entails protecting the people they care about, and so on.  Anarchy would just cause everyone to suffer.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

"Actually, most of the people close to me, are close to my friends. We are a tight knit group, those close to them become close to the group, or eventually fall to the wayside in their lives. A little bit of suffering would be had in seeing them hurt or suffer, but such is the price to pay."

"As for the rest of it, you're not responding to the argument I gave, you're responding to the argument you think I gave. I will answer the simple question, once again: 'Why support anarchy?' Because government, by virtue of its existence, is a corruption. Anarchy means, without ruler, it doesn't mean without guidance or leader, it's just a flawed view of what it means to be a leader. Once can lead, without any political or militant power whatsoever."

"Did MLK make laws, and demand people listen to him? Did Ghandi? Did Plato or Socrates? Yet, I would call all those men leaders, in some way. Of course, now, there would be some argument made about what those people stood for, even though I said nothing about that, nor did I even say I admired those people. However, I'm going to cut it off ahead of time, and even then, that won't guarantee that those factors won't enter into the argument."

"Oh, and to cut off another irrelevant argument, tyrants CAN be leaders, but that doesn't make them good leaders. So, that some leaders 'DO' make demands and laws, doesn't make those people worthwhile."

"The point is, removing government to rid the corruption is the only way, because as long as any man claims 'rule' by any means (democratic or otherwise), there is a problem."

"Also, I didn't state anarchy would dissolve into Ragnarok, my claim is that it will happen regardless. As a species, we're too stupid not to kill ourselves off eventually. I often make the point, that in nature, no other species kills its own species off en masse like humans do. Before you contradict that argument, read the words en masse again and again. There is no Lion Hiroshima, no Wolf Holocaust, no Alexander the  Hawk, slaughtering his way through all the hawks that stand or fly in his path, and no Attila the Fish stomping out all the other fishes."

"If you can find any similar events in nature, I bet they will be on the lowest level of the evolutionary scale with single-celled organisms and insects, with barely the mental facilities to even think for themselves. So if that's the comparison you want to make to humankind, I won't argue."

[Jude]

You sound like a villain from a video game or anime.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

"As is to be expected, honestly. Heroes are created by the conscience of the majority, which is foolish and corrupt. So, it stands to reason, that on occasion, what's reasonable might sound villainous."

[Will]

"Actually, most of the people close to me, are close to my friends. We are a tight knit group, those close to them become close to the group, or eventually fall to the wayside in their lives. A little bit of suffering would be had in seeing them hurt or suffer, but such is the price to pay."

"As for the rest of it, you're not responding to the argument I gave, you're responding to the argument you think I gave. I will answer the simple question, once again: 'Why support anarchy?' Because government, by virtue of its existence, is a corruption. Anarchy means, without ruler, it doesn't mean without guidance or leader, it's just a flawed view of what it means to be a leader. Once can lead, without any political or militant power whatsoever."

While getting rid of corruption in government is important to me, lessening the suffering of others is more so.  It's an issue of priorities.  I can't justify causing that many people to hurt and die, just to say that corruption in government is dealt with.

"Did MLK make laws, and demand people listen to him? Did Ghandi? Did Plato or Socrates? Yet, I would call all those men leaders, in some way. Of course, now, there would be some argument made about what those people stood for, even though I said nothing about that, nor did I even say I admired those people. However, I'm going to cut it off ahead of time, and even then, that won't guarantee that those factors won't enter into the argument."

They did not make laws, because they did not live in a vacuum of laws.  Anarchy will proceed to order, one way or another.

"Oh, and to cut off another irrelevant argument, tyrants CAN be leaders, but that doesn't make them good leaders. So, that some leaders 'DO' make demands and laws, doesn't make those people worthwhile."

No, it does not.  But it does make a pretty strong case that government is a natural part of humanity.  Even tyranny seems to be more attractive to a country than anarchy.  That should tell you something.

"The point is, removing government to rid the corruption is the only way, because as long as any man claims 'rule' by any means (democratic or otherwise), there is a problem."

Again, I cannot justify the awful consequences of an order-less society just to say that we've handled corruption.  You don't even know for sure that you could keep the people you care about safe and comfortable in a society like that.  Doesn't that uncertainty bother you at all?  I believe it's the main reason that anarchy never lasts.

"Also, I didn't state anarchy would dissolve into Ragnarok, my claim is that it will happen regardless. As a species, we're too stupid not to kill ourselves off eventually. I often make the point, that in nature, no other species kills its own species off en masse like humans do. Before you contradict that argument, read the words en masse again and again. There is no Lion Hiroshima, no Wolf Holocaust, no Alexander the  Hawk, slaughtering his way through all the hawks that stand or fly in his path, and no Attila the Fish stomping out all the other fishes."

"If you can find any similar events in nature, I bet they will be on the lowest level of the evolutionary scale with single-celled organisms and insects, with barely the mental facilities to even think for themselves. So if that's the comparison you want to make to humankind, I won't argue."

I don't see what that proves.  There are examples of malicious intra-species behavior in animals, dolphins for instance.  If they had the physical ability to kill a whole bunch of their own kind, they very well might.  No other species does as much for the conservation of other species as we do, either; saying as much doesn't prove anything about their nature as good or evil.  They might would, if they could.

[mystictiger]

"See picking and choosing which words. I said, 'I can't convey my thoughts in mere words'... You may not be doing it purposefully, but people choose what they want to hear in my arguments."

As is to be expected, honestly. Heroes are created by the conscience of the majority, which is foolish and corrupt. So, it stands to reason, that on occasion, what's reasonable might sound villainous

"Not unique to me, just hard to find, which is sad, because it's pretty damn easy to gain. Also, I recently had a conversation with a beloved old friend whose values differ greatly from my own, but she understands what is most important, enough that I don't claim ignorance on her part. It's not disagreeing with me that makes people ignorant, it's ignorance."

You cannot simmultaneously maintain the position that your position is reasonable, unintelligible (or at least incapable of being reduced to words), and only open to those who have gained the same insight as you! Occupying any two mutually excludes the third.

You have now moved on from saying that government is corrupt to saying that the majority is corrupt. Your position is therefore that every other position is wrong, simply because you don't hold it.