1092 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Anarchy = No State
Monarchy = State.

The two are not mixable

They are. In fact, as long as the King is not a real king but a legendary hero like Aragorn, or Maric, they are practically the same.

Legendary kings are still real kings.

Of course, such kings do not exist in Real Life, so you´re right when we´re talking about real politics.
But in a fantasy world they are indeed related, as kings like Aragorn are not dictators but heros that are followed by the people because they want, not because they´re forced to. It´s not suppression if you choose your leader yourself.
(One might argue that it´s stupid, yes, but total freedom sadly includes the right to be stupid).

The people of Ferelden are not mindless sheep happily following the Kings. Maric had respect, but he also had and used the tools of state to enforce consensus on the population. There were taxes, there were laws, there were guards and soldiers to enforce them, there were treaties, and there was no contract written up in which everyone signed the assent, nor did anyone ask the populace. There was a Landsmeet of the nobility, which at best is a feudal representative system less direct than the representative democracy you've already derided as tyranical. 

@Monica: Where did you find these definitions? Except for (and maybe the last, though I never heard that before) they are all wrong.

Those are standard definitions, such as you might find at dictionary.reference.com

Now, where are yours from?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 23 août 2010 - 09:55 .

[Tirigon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Those are standard definitions, such as you might find at dictionary.reference.com

Now, where are yours from?

From various anarchist philosophers and revoluzzers such as Bakunin, and from myself.
To be honest,I find it a bit retarded to follow other people´s ideas if the basic idea of anarchy is doing what YOU want

[KnightofPhoenix]

Faceplam. Aragorn and Maric lead governments / regimes / States, which is against Anarchist philosophy by default. It's irrelevent if they are liked or not. Many dictators were well liked, does that suddenly make them anarchist "heroes"?

And no, Monica's definition is correct. I studied political theory and anarchy was one of the philosphies I studied. Maybe you should reconsider calling yourself an anarchist and refer to yourtself as a democrat since you believe that leaders ought to be followed willingly with no coersion. That's definately not anarchy as it rejects all forms of states / governments.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Those are standard definitions, such as you might find at dictionary.reference.com

Now, where are yours from?

From various anarchist philosophers and revoluzzers such as Bakunin, and from myself.
To be honest,I find it a bit retarded to follow other people´s ideas if the basic idea of anarchy is doing what YOU want

So... you can't even point out your own definitions as something actually accepted and written, and instead rely on the subjective definitions of minor political scientists... and yourself?

And yes, anarchist philosophers are minor philosophers.

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...
@Monica: Where did you find these definitions? Except for (and maybe the last, though I never heard that before) they are all wrong.

OED is the Oxford English Dictionary. It's most definitely not wrong.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Faceplam. Aragorn and Maric lead governments / regimes / States, which is against Anarchist philosophy by default. It's irrelevent if they are liked or not. Many dictators were well liked, does that suddenly make them anarchist "heroes"?
And no, Monica's definition is correct. I studied political theory and anarchy was one of the philosphies I studied. Maybe you should reconsider calling yourself an anarchist and refer to yourtself as a democrat since you believe that leaders ought to be followed willingly with no coersion. That's definately not anarchy as it rejects all forms of states / governments.

I do reject the idea of a statte, and I don´t think there should be any leaders. HOWEVER, as anarchy is total freedom, you can not deny someone the right to choose a leader if they think it´s useful. As said, I don´t think it´s necessarily wise, but it´s their business.

[Tirigon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And yes, anarchist philosophers are minor philosophers.

Erm, noooo.

They are, after all, the ones who lived anarchy and fought for it. I think that´s more important than what others learn about the subject.

After all, what you learn in school or university is mostly wrong. The definition I learned in school was "Anarchists are bad, criminal terrorists who kill innocents with bombs and stuff". Well.....

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...
I do reject the idea of a statte, and I don´t think there should be any leaders. HOWEVER, as anarchy is total freedom, you can not deny someone the right to choose a leader if they think it´s useful. As said, I don´t think it´s necessarily wise, but it´s their business.

And you still don't understand what anarchy is. If someone chooses a leader then they are no longer anarchists. You seem to be confusing the idea of freedom with total lack of government and the two are most definitely not the same. Choosing a leader is a democratic process but it does not rule out freedom.

[Tirigon]

Monica21 wrote...

And you still don't understand what anarchy is. If someone chooses a leader then they are no longer anarchists. You seem to be confusing the idea of freedom with total lack of government and the two are most definitely not the same. Choosing a leader is a democratic process but it does not rule out freedom.

Anarchy IS total freedom. Everything else is just stuff that may or may not be part of it, but essentially Freedom = Anarchy.

Also there is a great difference between democracy and the way of choosing your leader that I mean. In a democracy, there are elections and afterwards you have a leader or a parliament for a certain span of time. You have to obey the laws this leader makes, even if you didn´t vote for him but someone else you lost.

I mean that you can decide to have a leader because it´s helpful, and if it´s no longer helpful, or you are just bored of following, you stop obeying.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And yes, anarchist philosophers are minor philosophers.

Erm, noooo.

They are, after all, the ones who lived anarchy and fought for it. I think that´s more important than what others learn about the subject.

Actually, most anarchists lived by most rules, and certainly enjoyed all the legal protections they could claim.

After all, what you learn in school or university is mostly wrong. The definition I learned in school was "Anarchists are bad, criminal terrorists who kill innocents with bombs and stuff". Well.....

Then you had a bad school... or one that focused only on some of the more practical examples of anarchist activisms at some points in history.

[sirchet]

I can't believe you guys really believe that anarchy can or would survive any longer than it would take the strongest to overpower the weak and ... BAM! you've got a government again, except this one was not elected.

If you want to see what complete anarchy is take a trip to Central Africa and visit some of the out of the way places, come back and tell us your opinion after you've experienced it first hand and not give us your opinion of this perfect "no rules" society that you believe can exist.

Think about it, even in a small group of friends where there are no rules set in stone, (or are there, hmmm so much for anarchy there) there's always one of the friends that assumes control most of the time. If you haven't noticed this, look closer next time.

Anarchy is a dream, thank goodness we eventually wake up and grow up.

Modifié par sirchet, 23 août 2010 - 11:04 .

[Tirigon]

Dean_the_Young wrote..

Actually, most anarchists lived by most rules, and certainly enjoyed all the legal protections they could claim.

True. Bakunin, however, who is my greatest inspiration, didn´t. He fought in several rebellions, was imprisoned for years and continued his fight when he got free.

[Tirigon]

sirchet wrote...


Think about it, even in a small group of friends where there are no rules set in stone, (or are there, hmmm so much for anarchy there) there's always one of the friends that assumes control most of the time. If you haven't noticed this, look closer next time.

Well not really. Sure, someone makes a suggestion what he´dlike, but that´s not compulsive. If it is you´re in a f*cked-up gang and should get new friends.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sigh, there can be no discussion regarding political theory if we dont' agree on the basic universally accepted definitions. So I suggest we move on.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote..

Actually, most anarchists lived by most rules, and certainly enjoyed all the legal protections they could claim.

True. Bakunin, however, who is my greatest inspiration, didn´t. He fought in several rebellions, was imprisoned for years and continued his fight when he got free.

Your inspiration of anarchy is someone who resorted to violence to enforce his views on other people?

[Wolverfrog]

He "kicked those Orlesian bastards out." And did many other great things. Eventually though his fear of foreign invasion led to his downfall.

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...

Anarchy IS total freedom. Everything else is just stuff that may or may not be part of it, but essentially Freedom = Anarchy.

Bakunin was a collectivist anarchist, it would seem. The basic wikipedia entry states "For the collectivization of the means of production, it was originally envisaged that workers will revolt and forcibly collectivize the means of production. Once collectivization takes place, workers' salaries would be determined in democratic organizations based on the amount of time they contributed to production. These salaries would be used to purchase goods in a communal market."

Do you see how that isn't total freedom? The collective anarchist may lack a governing body but they are not without rules.

Also there is a great difference between democracy and the way of choosing your leader that I mean. In a democracy, there are elections and afterwards you have a leader or a parliament for a certain span of time. You have to obey the laws this leader makes, even if you didn´t vote for him but someone else you lost.

Yes, you do have to obey the laws. That's democracy, but you also get a chance in another two, four, or six years to vote for someone else. Your voice is never discounted, but sometimes you just don't win.

I mean that you can decide to have a leader because it´s helpful, and if it´s no longer helpful, or you are just bored of following, you stop obeying.

And that's not anarchy, that's petulence.

Modifié par Monica21, 24 août 2010 - 12:59 .

[Tirigon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Your inspiration of anarchy is someone who resorted to violence to enforce his views on other people?

I prefer to say "someone who fought for freedom against a cruel and oppressive dictatorship"

Of course, that´s essentially the same. One side´s terrorists are the other side´s heroes.