Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Should we have a freewill?(Anarchy)

  1. Oct 23, 2007 #1
    I tried looking up anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-primitivism and both of them seem stupid enough to me to wonder how come they even gained attention. What is causing the weight in these thoeries guys?

    Also, wouldn't anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism develop into the kind of system we have today? Hasn't our humanity lived through all the theories and ended up being as we are today? Or did theories like anarcho-cummunism worked out perfectly had weak defence due to individuality and were crushed?

    Here is how I see it, the more comfort and privileges we have, the more we have to sacrifice our freedom. What do you guys think?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 11, 2007 #2

    PhY

    User Avatar

    Anarchy ? Yeah I'd love that if I was a Gang Leader.

    You know going around peoples homes, robbing, stealing with nobody to stop me, oh yeah and if theres a pretty girl walking down the street whos going to stop me from you know?

    Hypothetically speaking, I've just pointed out everything thats wrong with anarchism.

    Anarchy's only guarantee depends on Humans Free will and altruism.

    Ofcourse, Wars, School bullying and gangs such as the Mafia ...doesn't give any anarchist a clue of what Free will means.

    You can always ask Vladimir the Impaler ..>He Had Free Will haha.
     
  4. Nov 11, 2007 #3
    Can you explain what you mean here because I'm kinda confused about exactly what you mean. Are you saying it's causal, like when we give up some freedom we gain comfort and privileges? Or maybe your saying it runs in the other direction, like the richer we get the more we sacrifice our freedom? Or maybe it's neither?
     
  5. Nov 11, 2007 #4

    PhY

    User Avatar

    I do not agree what he/she is talking about.
    Communism is based on giving up freedom for the state, where was the comfort and privileges? Driving a Treban or Yugo..ect?
    Working a job, but not buying what you want to buy with it, but rather the necessities.

    If we give up freedom, its the other way round.
    If Bush imposed Martial law, I'd like to see you going down to the bar for a quiet drink with some mates after a long day of work ..Oh the Comfort and Privileges you will get in Jail.
     
  6. Nov 11, 2007 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    My guess? And I mean this sincerely: drugs. You get enough dumb pot-smoking kids together and eventually these kinds of anti-society ideas come out. It all sounds great when you're high.
    My view is yes, we've evolved and passed through most off that to get where we are today. But there are some (anarcho-communism is one) that are outside the natural evolution and never really had any traction.
    I'm not sure I see what you are getting at there. In my view, safety is a freedom, so really we're just talking about exchanging one kind of freedom for another. I may not have freedom from having to work and pay bills, but I do have the freedom to not get polio and smallpox and have an ambulance pick me up if I get in a car accident.
     
  7. Nov 11, 2007 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Soviet communism was, but the OP was talking about anarcho-communism, wich is basically where everyone chooses to live in such a state. It would require complete benevolence and altruism from the members to work and thus would only work in very small groups of like-minded people (and people have done it).
     
  8. Nov 11, 2007 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    An anarchist would tell you that that isn't anarchy, that's a dictatorship. but ironically, that's the most basic flaw in anarchism - it never stays anarchy for long. It is an unstable condition. Unless:
    Yep. So unless everyone wants it and works hard for it (yet without competing), it isn't possible. That's why it only works in small groups.
     
  9. Nov 12, 2007 #8

    PhY

    User Avatar

    It isn't possible, it might be possible for a small number of people for a single generation, there is no telling what the 2nd generation would be like.
    I think the most basic flaw of Anarchy is Humans nature to compete against each other, if we look at Religious History & Atheist history, we find that they all have had in some way or form a type of Eugenics Program to wipe out who does not comply.
    So basically, what anarchy offers is, to kill those who do not comply, else the whole system would fail, from a single smart person who might rip off the gullible altruistic person, who in turn might get pissed off, and going back to human nature, with no man in blue to be scared of, he would somehow murder/lynch him easily.
    And that murder would start a chain reaction of other murders, till so many people start distrusting and isolating themselves, that the system would fail.
    Holding that the Distrust and isolation would not occur before.

    Also, by the time that would happen, the Alpha male of some particular group would be naturally inclined to take over the system and replace it with his own. In Africa you've got countries who's system is weak (not weaker than anarchy, nothing is as likely to fail), and the Power Struggle is immense, there are a few countries that are governed by War Lords down there. That is why Communism, has a huge risk of failure and that is why most of the times Communism can't work, as the leader cannot be Equal, or the system will Fail!

    So Kids, Remember if you want anarchy, theres always some alpha male waiting to seize power...the power struggle is endless.

    Capitalism is in General Humans True Nature, ugliness, a never ending competition the result of a never ending Motivation, to Work/study and be ahead of others.
    No Wonder the suicide rate is lower in Capitalistic countries, we're too busy working to buy things that we Want, to stay ahead of others.
     
  10. Nov 12, 2007 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well yes - when I say small, I mean really small - like a hippie commune.
     
  11. Nov 13, 2007 #10

    EnumaElish

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    You are asserting so many "facts" about human nature without providing any testable proof to warrant moving this thread from Social Sciences.

    How is "human nature" part of social sciences?

    How do I know the competitive "human nature" is not a result of the capitalistic societies to which the humans you are referring to were born, and not the other way around?
     
  12. Nov 13, 2007 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    "Social science" is simply the scientific study of human social interaction. "Human nature" is what people call the pre-wired social behavior of humans. So it could basically be said that social science is the study of human nature.
    The easiest evidence comes from studying the behavior of other animals and seeing how it is similar and/or different from the behavior of humans.

    The theory of evolution itself is about competition (whether overt or not) between animals for survival.
     
  13. Nov 14, 2007 #12

    PhY

    User Avatar

    Ever heard of Darwins Law of Survival?
    Ever read a History Book?
    Ever watched National Geographic ...those Africa Specials?

    Infact I reject my point, its not human nature, but nature itself.
    It is not a result of capitalistic societies, we can see the competitiveness between tribes, individuals nations ...hell USSR Communistic ..and it was Capitalistic Americas greatest Competitor...
    Also sorry if i sound a bit arrogant in this post, but I do not like the way you reason, infact I'm expecting a Reply on the grounds of "what if our capitalistic societies influenced how the Animals around us work".
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2007
  14. Nov 14, 2007 #13

    EnumaElish

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    PhY, that's my point. Darwin was a biologist. National Geographic isn't serious social science, at best it's watered-down pop anthropology.

    As for History... History classes do not start with "human nature."

    Social science is about social norms and social institutions. In Soc. Sci., humans do not make societies, it's the other way around.

    You don't apologize for your posts, and I won't for mine.
    Could it be because it makes you feel scientifically challenged?
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2007
  15. Nov 14, 2007 #14

    EnumaElish

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Okay. But that's biology; not social science.

    Social scientific models are at least as much about cooperation as competition, if not more so.
     
  16. Nov 14, 2007 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The two are intimately related. I'm sure you must have heard the term "social Darwinism" before. They are, for all practical purposes, the same thing.
    What's your point?
     
  17. Nov 17, 2007 #16

    EnumaElish

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    As a social scientist I differ.
    The result of appointing Darwin to the role of the Social Scientist is a double transference (or imputation) (1) of Darwinian biology to the Human Nature (as such, an ill-defined object from a social science point of view) and (2) of this scientifically ill-conceived Human Nature to the status of the primary object of social science. Each of these labored transferences is possible only thanks to an inexact set of unexamined assumptions (about, for example, Competitiveness and Survival) which are selectively carried along from one to the next.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2007
  18. Nov 17, 2007 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm still not seeing a point here, much less an argument. First off, are you making the claim that there are no behaviors, types of behaviors, or attitudes pre-wired into the human brain? Are you making the claim that other animals do not have social interaction? Or are you making the claim that social interaction is Darwinian in animals but not Darwinian in humans? And are you claiming that societies don't evolve? Also:
    You are saying that humans are made by society, but society is not made by humans. That's illogical, self-contradictory, and straightforwardly wrong. The definition of "society" is an organized group of people - it can't exist before the people and can only be created by those people who are in it. You seem to be claiming that "society" is something that exists independent of the people in it!

    Now it is true that societies shape their members through their interactions, but it is also true that the members shape their society. People have control over their own future and societies change based on the dynamics of the group.

    And finding out that you are a social scientist is very scary to me. Ie (back to a previous post):
    How can you study human behavior and interaction without knowing or attempting to figure out what behaviors come from animal instinct and what behaviors don't? You didn't answer my question in reponse to this one: What do you make of the evidence that shows humans behave a lot like other animals? Does this not imply that those behaviors are a product of evolution? The idea that social scientists would not consider the biological influences on human behavior is very disturbing to me.

    [edit] I left out perhaps the biggest question: are you advocating communism based on the premise that people are not capable of providing for themselves?
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2007
  19. Nov 17, 2007 #18

    EnumaElish

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I will respond to your substantial questions in a longer post -- but this is an absurd conclusion and it is difficult for me to see how you are coming up with it.

    Social Science doesn't need to assert/agree to a Darwinian Human Nature in order to postulate what "works" in what type of societies and what doesn't, any more than Darwinism/biology (even physics) imply an absence of free will.

    From a "30K feet" altitude, encroachment of biology into social sciences is not all that different from the encroachment of religion into biology, and (I think) about as useful.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2007
  20. Nov 19, 2007 #19
    I am certainly not going to waste my time defending theories and practices that have endured a century's worth of logical debate and thought, but before you spout off that Anarcho-Syndicalism was the result of "young pot heads", which is HIGHLY offensive to historical evidence, please research some of the actual founders of anarchist theory:

    Kroptokin (a well regarded scientist who continued Darwin's work)
    Malatesta (a certified hard ass)
    Bakunin ( spoke a lot about Syndicalism)

    And before you compare anarchist society with something that "maybe could work in a very very small hippy commune" , research a moment in Spanish history when anarchist organization was more efficient than the Republican government or the invading Fascist army (supported by Hitler and Mussolini):

    Spanish Civil War, 1936.

    russ_waters, I would think that you would know better than to speak about a subject you are completely ignorant of.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2007
  21. Nov 20, 2007 #20

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    IMO, most people who think they are anarchists are actually either libertarians or thugs/dictators. Both want to be able to "do their own thing" with the difference being that libertarians don't want to harm or force others and thugs/dictators do.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Should we have a freewill?(Anarchy)
  1. We have a FAWN (Replies: 44)

  2. Do we have souls? (Replies: 29)

  3. We have new neighbors! (Replies: 16)

  4. Should we take a poll? (Replies: 9)

Loading...