Is Anarchism a Good Political Philosophy

From now on, I will be using the far more accurate terms "logical" and "sound" when discussing the resolution. My opponent has contested my claims about Anarchism, and has provided a few sources for his claim. These sources however I find to be poor sources, for 2 reasons. The problem with using common dictionaries when it comes to political ideologies, is that common dictionaries use common definitions. Not necessarily the most accurate to the individuals of the ideology itself. This goes back to what I was saying before about common misconceptions about Anarchism. In the common tongue, the term "anarchist" is used to imply opposition to government, but this is simply not the case. Anarchism is concerned with illegitimate forms of authority, not authority in general. Further more, the usage of the term "government" can be tricky, as "government" is commonly used to mean "the State", when, as I pointed out earlier, a government is the method by which human beings organize themselves into a society. My opponent is utilizing the latter usage of "government", and mixing it with the former, incorrect usage of "anarchism", that being of opposing all forms of authority, and coming to the conclusion that anarchy is opposed to all government (thereby giving rise to my opponent's claim that it is hypocritical). This is not the case. I feel slightly indignant that this is something I must address again, I will admit. As the affirmative in this debate, and as the one defending these ideologies, I should think that I know better than anyone else what exactly it is I am defending. given that my opponent did not define terms in the first round, it is the definitions I have provided which should be taken into account; not the far too broad definitions my opponent has provided. Beyond that though, let's look at a description of Anarchism from an old college textbook of mine, from a political science class. "Anarchist ideology is defined by the central belief that political authority in all it's forms, and especially in the form of the state, is both evil and unnecessary. Anarchists therefore look to the creation of a stateless society through the abolition of law. .. In their view, the state is evil because, as a repository of sovereign compulsory and coercive authority, it is an offence against the principles of freedom and equality. .. Anarchists believe that the state is unnecessary because order and social harmony can arise naturally and spontaneously, and do not need to be imposed 'from above' through government. ""The defining feature of Anarchism is it's opposition the state. .. Anarchists have a preference for a stateless society in which free individuals manage their affairs through voluntary agreement, without compulsion or coercion. "The above quotes come from the 5th edition of "Political Ideologies: An Introduction", by Andrew Heywood. Clearly then the ideas we are discussing are as I have described them; not as my opponent has attempted to do, by usurping my definition. Anarchism is an ideology dealing with rebellion against what it claims are illegitimate forms of authority, most notably the modern state. It claims this because these forms of authority are handed down, as described above, "from on high". They are not consented to, and rather are foisted and forced upon populations, and demand compulsory service. This is the kind of authority, of government, we are discussing. Not the governments that arise in stateless societies. The State is only one form of government. Given that, it is my opponent's job to justify the modern State, as the natural form of existence is a stateless society. My opponent, in order to discredit Anarchism, must justify the compulsory, forced service the state demands. He must just this inherent violation of freedom. If he cannot, Anarchism's central premise (that the state is unnecessary and evil) holds true, and therefore, is found to be a sound argument (meeting the criteria of being a "good" political philosophy). Now, onto some of my opponent's statements. "My thoughts on the first two definitions is that I argue that not all forms of government are illegitimate. For example, the U. S. A. allowed the banks to mess with their money and look where it got them. Does that mean all that governments are bad because of this one particular government. No. "Please note that whether or not a government is "good" or "bad" does not change one way or another if they are illegitimate forms of authority. Their illegitimacy comes from their lack of sound right to force compulsory service and subjugation onto people, not their decisions as a government. So to point out that some governments may be "good" is a meaningless argument. "When looking at his argument saying that which idea of anarchism is not important, my opponent has failed to recognize the importance of what anarchist society the people should live by. The reason why it's important is because as we look at history, we will notice that there are certain characteristics from these different forms of anarchism that ether make or break a society. "Which is, again, a matter of debate amongst Anarchists themselves. But the existence of this debate does not deny the central premise of Anarchism, no more than competing theories about the origin of the laws of physics deny the truth of the laws themselves. This is not a debate about which form of Anarchism is better, and as there are so many theories, it is not something we can properly cover in one debate. This is a debate about whether the philosophy of Anarchism is, itself, a sound argument. IS the state an illegitimate form of authority? Can people truly function on their own, without the need of an external authority telling them what is right and wrong, and how to live their life? These are the questions we must consider, not whether or not individualist or collectivist forms of Anarchism are superior to one another. "With response to your counter argument by saying that my argument about corrupt banks and corporations is not relevant. Why not? This has everything to do with anarchism because if it's true that all governments are illegitimate and the anarchists seek to control, how can they take control when they are dealing with extremely powerful groups such as corporations and the banks which then become the next power and already are. "The reason I say it is irrelevant is again, it is a matter that is dealt with by competing theories of how to structure the best Anarchist society. It's not the concern of the collective, broad political theory called "Anarchism". As I pointed out earlier, Anarcho-communists would deal with this problem by simply structuring a society without money to begin with. Anarcho-capitalists might argue that without the aid of the state, such a scenario would never have arised to begin with. Other more extreme individualusts might argue that what occured with the banks isn't even necessarily a poblem, as it is people expressing their free wil to make whatever decisions they like. These are all questions to be dealt with by competeing sects of Anarchists within anarchism; but the competition of these ideals does not, in any way, influence the truthfullness of the claim "the state is an illegitimate and harmful form of authority", as Anarchism does. This is why it is irrelevant; the question doesn't pertain at all to the resolution. Whether or not Anarchism is a sound political ideology is not in any way dependant upon the banking crisis.