ChangeAndChance
15th July 2014, 05:08
Recently, I obtained a copy of noted political philosophy professor Alan Ryan's magnum opus "On Politics", published in 2012. I was pleased to find a section on anarchism within it, despite Ryan's generally liberal yet statist political views.
He seemed to sum up his position on anarchism on page 894:
"The connection between anarchism and socialism is, at a rudimentary level, obvious. The state exists to protect the haves against the have-nots; if there were no haves on the one side or have-nots on the other, there would be no need for a state. One might object, as every critic of the anarchist view of the world has done, that the state exists not only to protect the property of owners from the depredations of non-owners but to protect the physically weaker from the physically stronger and to prevent sexual predation as well as simple assault and battery. At that point the real argument commences, because any anarchist who wishes to imagine a stateless world must go on to explain how her preferred method of social organization will eliminate the interpersonal violence that states must, as a bare minimum, control."
After such a tirade, you'd think he'd elaborate, but nope that's it.
What are your responses, fellow anarchist RevLefters, to this reactionary liberal scum's argument against our politics? :grin:
I'm expecting a ton of debating with a conservative friend of mine next semester so I need some dung to throw!
He seemed to sum up his position on anarchism on page 894:
"The connection between anarchism and socialism is, at a rudimentary level, obvious. The state exists to protect the haves against the have-nots; if there were no haves on the one side or have-nots on the other, there would be no need for a state. One might object, as every critic of the anarchist view of the world has done, that the state exists not only to protect the property of owners from the depredations of non-owners but to protect the physically weaker from the physically stronger and to prevent sexual predation as well as simple assault and battery. At that point the real argument commences, because any anarchist who wishes to imagine a stateless world must go on to explain how her preferred method of social organization will eliminate the interpersonal violence that states must, as a bare minimum, control."
After such a tirade, you'd think he'd elaborate, but nope that's it.
What are your responses, fellow anarchist RevLefters, to this reactionary liberal scum's argument against our politics? :grin:
I'm expecting a ton of debating with a conservative friend of mine next semester so I need some dung to throw!