Wizard v Joker: Anarchy

My position in this debate will be that Anarchy is unrealistic, improbable, and will not occur within the next 1000 years as depicted by apocalyptic scenarios.

Joker’s position will be the antithesis, a promotion of Anarchy, and to argue in favor of a probable future with any anarchic societies, revolts, or even, historical anarchic periods.

To begin with, my hypothesis is simple. Anarchy refers to the breakdown of society, civilization, and humanity, as a return to general “lawlessness” where crimes and punishment either are ignored or cannot be enforced, due to a lack of centralized government, police, or militia. Anarchy is often used synonymous with a state of nature, which is partially true. Thus people who claim to be anarchists, or promote anarchy (destruction of civilization), coincide with those who want to return to “the past”, a previous “pure state” of humanity, or to return to “nature”. I will argue that these are false claims. Because civilization is an extension of nature, and therefore a reaction to those same periods of anarchy that may or may not have existed long ago.

Another sub-topic will be how to identify periods of anarchy by degree. Do people mean the complete breakdown of a society, or merely, the power-vacuum when certain leaders or political parties are deposed? After the French Revolution, when the nobility was executed and deposed, would that constitute a period of anarchy? And would then anarchy be likened to the “liberal” state, or “to liberate” necessarily implies to bring in a period of anarchy?

This debate will be on going. After long enough time passes, lack of interest, one or the other side quits posting for an extended time (1 or 2 weeks), then the debate will be considered finished. Other posters may weigh in, deeming a winner, or the most convincing arguments. There will be no final tally for judgment as the terms of this debate will be ongoing, no “final dates” to anything. This will allow both Joker and I to participate at our leisure, interest, and will. And it will ensure for a better debate/argument/conversation.

I will begin, if Joker does not, with my own, personal definitions of anarchy, and how they are contrasted to “Civilized” states.

Other posters should not post, and if they do, will count as interference and should be routinely ignored.

Interesting. I’ll accept this challenge but only until after the conclusion with Carleas of the current debate I am involved in.

This hasn’t worked well in the past, and I don’t think it fits the purpose of the Chamber of Debate. Open-ended discussions can be had in any other forum; the chamber is for more structurally constrained, exhibition-style exchanges.

You could do a somewhat longer-than-usual debate with larger word caps, seems like it would satisfy the same purpose. Something like 5 posts each, a week per post, and 1000-2000 words?


Ready, … steady, …

Carleas you are welcome to create a new thread about “Debate mechanics and guidelines”.

You and I can debate, about how debates should take place, later.

This forum to arrange the specifics of a debate, part of which is discussing mechanics of the debate. This isn’t where you have the debates. If you’re just looking to start a discussion, you can do that in the appropriate regular forum (in this case, probably SG&E).

I was going to post a thread in the ‘Debate’ section but couldn’t do that for some odd reason.

Again, you are welcome to debate me about how debates should be outlined, another time.

For now, Joker and I will debate here, in this thread, until you learn how to manage a philosophy forum properly. Don’t blame us for your incompetence or weak willpower, to even provide a basic format for two participants to begin a debate and argument of our own free will.


You can see how, even before we begin, we have third parties trying to interlude, interrupt, and disrupt our debate. This is a very pathetic website and forum, but, we must make do.

I will appreciate no further interruptions and bothering by Carleas. Get lost.