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

News The What does Smurf think? thread.

  1. Nov 29, 2005 #1
    The "What does Smurf think?" thread.

    This thread is all about what Smurf, my favorite anti-statist on this board, thinks. Specifically, about what would happen were "the state" abolished.

    First off, is your version of anti-statism pretty self explanatory? Is anti-statism the same thing as total anarchy?

    Secondly, were the state abolished, what do you think would happen? It's one thing to dislike what a particular state does, or what states do as a whole, but I'd like to see you make the case that the total absence of all states would lead to a better situation than you currently have.

    Take your time, please, develop a well-thought-out manifesto if you will. Touch all your bases, try to make it as complete as possible. I realize you're big on how bad states are, and it's certainly easy to point out all the negative things about states. But try to postulate what would happen in a world without any states instead of point out the negative aspects of states and simply say that the absence of states would lead to the absence of said negative aspects.

    Some basic problems I'd like to see you provide an answer for are:

    1) Without a state, there presumably wouldn't be money. How would people get the goods and services they need/want without money?

    2) Without a state, how would individuals be sure that they could keep the goods they do obtain? That is, how can you be sure someone with a weapon won't just take your food or clothing?

    3) Without a state, there wouldn't be police or a military. How would people's general security be assured? What would be stopping someone from killing/enslaving others if he had enough weaponry/mercenaries?

    4) In the absence of a state, what would stop some form of state from arising? What if another state arose in the absence of the previously abolished state?

    I appreciate any time you might put into this,

    P.S. Just to reiterate, please, try to stay away from stating all the wrongs and evils of a state. Just because a state infringes upon people's liberties and kills people, it doesn't mean that in the absence of a state that things would necessarily get better.
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 29, 2005 #2
    Woohoo! I've always wanted an "All about me" thread. :smile:
  4. Nov 29, 2005 #3
    So to apease your fans, will you take the time to write your Smurfist Manifesto?
  5. Nov 29, 2005 #4
    You really, are just so cute. :smile:
  6. Nov 29, 2005 #5
    I was thinking about what if someone started a thread about smurf today! O.O

    Anyway, Smurf....... why do you hate voting, believe in anarchy, and hate everything that I dont hate O.O
  7. Nov 29, 2005 #6
    The Smurfist Manifesto

    Okay I've written a good part already and copied it into a text document. I'll write more later, I'm going to a show.
  8. Nov 29, 2005 #7
    I know the truth and try to live ethically.
  9. Nov 29, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    *clap clap clap*

    if smurf weren't here.... itd be such a boring world... *tear*...
  10. Nov 29, 2005 #9
    Stop thinking about sex!
  11. Nov 29, 2005 #10
    Who's Smurf?
  12. Nov 30, 2005 #11
    Smurf, perhaps when you've completed your treatise/manifesto/whatever, you should start a new thread, so people know to talk about your topic specifically, instead of just talking about you.

    Unless, of course, all you really wanted to get through anti-statism was some attention. :biggrin:
  13. Nov 30, 2005 #12
    Ouch.. freud :biggrin:
    I would watch out or papa smurf will be a knocking on yer door :rofl:
  14. Nov 30, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    A thread about smurf?:bugeyes: Why doesn't it have a poll? :tongue2:
  15. Nov 30, 2005 #14

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :uhh: umm.. because it would only contain one person's responses? The thread is about what Smurf thinks, not what everybody thinks about what Smurf thinks.. I think..
  16. Nov 30, 2005 #15
    sex isn't unethical.
  17. Nov 30, 2005 #16
    yeah, try telling that that to the girls I've dated... oh wait
  18. Dec 1, 2005 #17
    So Smurf, what's going on, are you still polishing it up or have you abandoned your ideals?
  19. Dec 1, 2005 #18
    yes, I'm still writing it, I'll post a little bit of it this evening. It'll give you lot something to complain about while i write the rest.
  20. Dec 2, 2005 #19
    The Smurfish Manifesto, Chapter 1

    On the Rejection of Anarchy:
    Anarchy, in the political sense, is the rejection of the state. No more, no less. It is an umbrella term. A friend of mine said to me the other day that he didn't think Anarchy could work. My response was to point out that (since we're both philosophers that tend to work in formal logic) such a statement didn't really make sense. Anarchy per se is not a solution. It is merely the rejection of the state. Thus, the only way to say that Anarchy "won't work" is to (as opposed to attacking the feasibility of Anarchy) defend the state, and prove that it is absolutely necessary. Since there are numerous historical examples where there was no recognizable "state" institution (there are various definitions of the state) I contend that this can not be proven.
    This does not, however, mean that arguments can not be made against specific political theories that incorporate Anarchism or specific branches or Anarchism such as Punk-Anarchy or Anarcho-Syndicalism. These are actually providing a culture or proposed way to organize society that does not involve a state, and so, can be attacked.

    Definitions of Anarchy:
    As stated above, Anarchy is the rejection of the state. I am not aware how that term came about, except that Proudhon was the first person to call himself an "Anarchist" and that his philosophy revolved around the rejection of the state. Other "Anarchists" after him developed many different theories but kept the name "Anarchy" and it does not any longer refer specifically to Proudhonians but is a general umbrella term for any ideology that rejects the state.
    This is different from the dictionary definition of Anarchy which, if you look it up, will probably say something like "Disorder, Chaos, Lack of Organization, Lack of any cohesive principle, etc". This is irrelevant to the political Anarchist's ideology.

    A Moral Argument:
    I do not claim to have a "version" of Anarchy, per se. I have ideas, but do not align myself strongly with any version of Anarchy. I probably identify most with some form of Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-Communism and Primitivism.
    My reason for rejecting the state is on a purely moral basis. I am a Libertarian and thus, a Humanitarian. I believe all humans should be free, and believe that the idea of freedom automatically implies at least a limited form of human well-being and welfare (welfare being health, happiness, ect., not government programs). The state, and all other "destructive hierarchies", are in direct conflict any degree of realisation for these goals.
  21. Dec 2, 2005 #20
    I know that only really addressed one of the things you asked, I am very busy, this is just to wet your appetite and to touch on some other things I wanted to say.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook