[QUOTE=Splurgy_A;24539893]"Ok, we're all lovely people who are voluntarily cooperating."
"Hey, I'm a dick. There's no Government around here, so I can intimidate people into doing what I want, because I'm an ascended high school bully who now is in posession of weaponry and a gang of feral youths! ALL OF YOU BOW DOWN TO ME, I AM ESTABLISHING MYSELF AS A WARLORD!"
"Quick, run away!"
"I can't! I got food poisoning from that restaurant because there's no longer a Food Standards Agency so they didn't get shut down for being unhygenic! And I can't go to hospital since there's not enough Doctors since the Medical Schools can't sustain themselves without Governmental grants!"
"Oh no!"[/QUOTE]
Alright.
So, you, personally, without a governement you would go rogue with a baseball bat and kill everyone on sight? if so, you are too immature to be alive, IMHO.
And, it does take a minimum of ethics, principles and education for anarchy to work. But, honestly, do you really need people behind you to tell you whats right or wrong?
People are too used to having someone watching their back, and think that they will let loose if there is no one. Anarchy worked, and it will work. Provided that the members of the community are mature enough.
Just looking at reactions to this thread are kinds inisghtful, when it comes to who is willing and capable of putting efforts into being a better person.
Anarchy may not be chaos, but it can sure lead to it fast.
Anarchy is stupid
[QUOTE=kayOkay;24539980]Alright.
So, you, personally, without a governement you would go rogue with a baseball bat and kill everyone on sight? if so, you are too immature to be alive, IMHO.
And, it does take a minimum of ethics, principles and education for anarchy to work. But, honestly, do you really need people behind you to tell you whats right or wrong?
People are too used to having someone watching their back, and think that they will let loose if there is no one. Anarchy worked, and it will work. Provided that the members of the community are mature enough.
Just looking at reactions to this thread are kinds inisghtful, when it comes to who is willing and capable of putting efforts into being a better person.[/QUOTE]
Crime is still present with authority figures to watch over. Think how massive of a boost to crime there could potentially be without any form of police. Of course, that's a bit of a guess, since I haven't seen the effect of the loss of police forces.
[QUOTE=lawl;24539920]In anarchy people would divide up into groups/gangs for control. There would be looting and pillaging everywhere. He would be the first one begging for the police to come save him if someone broke into his house. It's actually hilarious for someone to believe everyone would come together and hold hands in an anarchist world, lmao. Anyone who believes in such idiocy probably has no idea how the real world works at all, outside of what they learned in video games.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't mean you need to shitpost. It's a well written OP, and you didn't even read it before commenting on his thread. Nowhere does he even mention his family.
[QUOTE=kayOkay;24539980]Alright.
So, you, personally, without a governement you would go rogue with a baseball bat and kill everyone on sight? if so, you are too immature to be alive, IMHO.
And, it does take a minimum of ethics, principles and education for anarchy to work. But, honestly, do you really need people behind you to tell you whats right or wrong?
People are too used to having someone watching their back, and think that they will let loose if there is no one. Anarchy worked, and it will work. Provided that the members of the community are mature enough.
Just looking at reactions to this thread are kinds inisghtful, when it comes to who is willing and capable of putting efforts into being a better person.[/QUOTE]
He did say
[quote]"Ok, we're all lovely people who are voluntarily cooperating."[/quote]Are you blind?
Not everyone will be happy to help others. They will be happy to take advantage of others a lot more. And only few of people like this is enough to create a giant shitstorm.
I doubt you'll understand. Read my first post in this thread.
[QUOTE=Murkat;24540016]Crime is still present with authority figures to watch over. Think how massive of a boost to crime there could potentially be without any form of police. Of course, that's a bit of a guess, since I haven't seen the effect of the loss of police forces.[/QUOTE]
See Liberia.
Anarchy is a transitional period. It's very easy to get to, but very hard to stay in. There can never be a lack of power or authority for too long of a time.
Let me try to explain what I mean: imagine if each form of government has a scale of freedom, where dictatorship is the least free and anarchism is totally free, and democracy is in the middle. However, each form of government also has a scale of "risk of revolution", where dictatorships mostly use whatever powers they can to stop revolutions and so on, and in a democracy the government has a military and a police and enough power and authority to stop most revolutions, but in anarchy, there isn't any sort of authority or power. All a group has to do is get strong enough and force everyone else to do what they want, which is the same for a democracy, but much easier.
There is a reason that right now most governments are democratic, and obviously the most successful ones are, it's because this currently the best form of government we can think of. Anarchy is "better" but it just can't stay better, there's too much risk of it becoming worse, much worse than democracy, so we can either come up with a better form of government than democracy, or wait until the risk factor will be much lower, if people will change and be less violent, greedy, and egotistic, though that's not gonna happen soon.
[QUOTE=kayOkay;24539980]Alright.
So, you, personally, without a governement you would go rogue with a baseball bat and kill everyone on sight? if so, you are too immature to be alive, IMHO.
And, it does take a minimum of ethics, principles and education for anarchy to work. But, honestly, do you really need people behind you to tell you whats right or wrong?
People are too used to having someone watching their back, and think that they will let loose if there is no one. Anarchy worked, and it will work. Provided that the members of the community are mature enough.
Just looking at reactions to this thread are kinds inisghtful, when it comes to who is willing and capable of putting efforts into being a better person.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no, I wouldn't because I'm a decent person.
If you want to see the sort of people who'd go rouge with weaponry to gain access to material goods, attractive rapeable women and power, just hang out on a street corner in Peckham late on a Friday night.
There is plenty of gang warfare in the impoverished inner cities. The only thing stopping it spilling out into leafy suburbs and market towns is the combined efforts of the police force and intelligence agencies. You might say they're too immature to be alive, and I may well agree with you, but it'd be no use calling them immature when they shoot you through the head.
Very recently, a kid in London got stabbed to death. Do you know why? He lived in SE14 (New Cross) but he went in to SE15 (Peckham) to do Community service. The gang in SE15 stabbed him to death for venturing into a post code area in which he didn't live. If people under a police force are prepared to stab someone to death over something so trivial, think what they'll be like with no police force to detain them and keep them from the public.
[quote]Provided that the members of the community are mature enough.[/quote]
They're not. This is the whole point. The members of the community who are not mature enough to be a responsible member of society will still exist, and are the same members of the community who weren't mature enough not to beat up the geeky kid for his lunch money. Remove the police force, and school bullies can bully adults, posses weapons and establish little fiefdoms.
[QUOTE=Murkat;24540016]Crime is still present with authority figures to watch over. Think how massive of a boost to crime there could potentially be without any form of police. Of course, that's a bit of a guess, since I haven't seen the effect of the loss of police forces.[/QUOTE]
Citizen police.
This is all fine in theory, but if one bastard gets a group, it becomes like medieval society with kingdoms everywhere.
[quote]1.A state of society [B]without [/B]government or [B]law[/B].
2.Political and social disorder due to the [B]absence of[/B] governmental [B]control[/B]: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
[/quote]
OP should check the dictionary for the definition of chaos.
[QUOTE=Murkat;24540016]Crime is still present with authority figures to watch over. Think how massive of a boost to crime there could potentially be without any form of police. Of course, that's a bit of a guess, since I haven't seen the effect of the loss of police forces.[/QUOTE]
That's the problem, authorities are watching over.
When a kid steals something, his parents wont tell him:
"Don't steal because someone worked hard to have that, imagine how you would feel if you worked hard to earn something and then someone took it."
Instead, they will tell him:
"omfg you'r gunna burn in hell after getting raped in prison."
People have been tought since the beginning of history, that without someone watching over them, they will do nothing. And without a governement, the chaos that results is only the consequences of that education.
So er... just a shit, confusing term for democracy then?
The direct variant not the representative one we use.
[editline]02:08PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chilean;24539963][img]http://www.elleon.com/images/2008/papa-smurf.gif[/img]
fuck yeah anarchy[/QUOTE]
The smurfs are communists aren't they?
[QUOTE=acds;24540090]OP should check the dictionary for the definition of chaos.[/QUOTE]
Check the definition of the word "light".
It got many meanings ranging from physics to colours.
Anarchy is the same, the definitions range from a social state to a political theory.
Anarchy would never work. Human nature won't let it.
Also known as fucking democracy. Stop being confusing on purpose.
Anarchy would be great, I could shoot anyone I wanted and would have no fear of the law, only a reprisal which would then lead to more reprisals and so on and so forth. This is why it would never work, people would go fucking crazy.
[QUOTE=BmB;24540096]So er... just a shit, confusing term for democracy then?
The direct variant not the representative one we use.[/QUOTE]
That, and the fact that we have been tought since childhood that without a governement we will get raped by fat niggers.
[QUOTE=kayOkay;24539980]Alright.
So, you, personally, without a governement you would go rogue with a baseball bat and kill everyone on sight? if so, you are too immature to be alive, IMHO.
And, it does take a minimum of ethics, principles and education for anarchy to work. But, honestly, do you really need people behind you to tell you whats right or wrong?
People are too used to having someone watching their back, and think that they will let loose if there is no one. Anarchy worked, and it will work. Provided that the members of the community are mature enough.
Just looking at reactions to this thread are kinds inisghtful, when it comes to who is willing and capable of putting efforts into being a better person.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about you but I'd sure love to take a few thins from my neighbor and fuck every hot girl I see if there weren't any laws about it. Obviously I won't be strong enough to do all these things in an anarchy, since everyone from my town will be able to punish me as you described in the OP, however, if someone gathers some friends and weapons, what's stopping him from doing that?
If all the states in the world will dissolve and the whole world will turn into anarchy, it will be very short-lived. Most cities will have some kind of a semi-military gang take over them and dictatorships will be established, we will go back to the bronze age basically, with city-states fighting against each other until they become full-blown states dictators and kings, until people will get tired of it and revolt and establish democracy, and then some assholes on the internet will argue that anarchy is better than democracy or all forms of government and the cycle continues.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is communist not democratic.
[QUOTE=kayOkay;24540112]Check the definition of the word "light".
It got many meanings ranging from physics to colours.
Anarchy is the same, the definitions range from a social state to a political theory.[/QUOTE]
ARE YOU READING THE ENTIRE THREAD OR ARE YOU REPLYING ONLY TO POST YOU CAN ARGUE WITH?
There are different definitions of word "light" as there are definitions of it in different categories i.e.: light in physics, light in colours, etc. they are all completely different things, just having the same label. Read my first post I already explained that, way to ignore it.
[QUOTE=Mabus;24540130]Anarchy would be great, I could shoot anyone I wanted and would have no fear of the law, only a reprisal which would then lead to more reprisals and so on and so forth. This is why it would never work, people would go fucking crazy.[/QUOTE]
Would you shoot anyone if there was no policer around?
Think about it and answer honestly.
(and we should call a doctor if you do answer yes.)
[QUOTE=kayOkay;24540095]That's the problem, authorities are watching over.
When a kid steals something, his parents wont tell him:
"Don't steal because someone worked hard to have that, imagine how you would feel if you worked hard to earn something and then someone took it."
Instead, they will tell him:
"omfg you'r gunna burn in hell after getting raped in prison."
People have been tought since the beginning of history, that without someone watching over them, they will do nothing. And without a governement, the chaos that results is only the consequences of that education.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather know that nobody is committing crimes out of fear of the law than live without law hoping people won't do bad things because they realize they're bad, to no avail.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;24540160]ARE YOU READING THE ENTIRE THREAD OR ARE YOU REPLYING ONLY TO POST YOU CAN ARGUE WITH?
There are different definitions of word "light" as there are definitions in different categories i.e.: light in physics, light in colours, etc. they are all completely different things having the same label. Read my first post I already explained that, way to ignore it.[/QUOTE]
I am sorry but if I answer every single post myself, the thread would turn to :
X asks.
me answers.
Y asks.
me answers.
Dont worry though, am already adding the questions and their answers to the OP so that I wont have to answer the same things ten times.
[QUOTE=kayOkay;24540167]Would you shoot anyone if there was no policer around?
Think about it and answer honestly.
(and we should call a doctor if you do answer yes.)[/QUOTE]
I'd shoot someone for several reasons, for example if he shot first, or if I want something from him. I know it's wrong, but who cares? No police, no laws, no punishment, why should I care?
Anarchy is great in theory but I do not believe it will ever work for an extended period of time. A short time everyone might be happy but even if you do not account for humanities greed there are people who are born with psychological disorders who will not be capable of living in anarchy.
A smart psychopath who is a good speaker could easily sway people into following him for whatever reason and that is the end of anarchy.
[QUOTE=acds;24540090]OP should check the dictionary for the definition of chaos.[/QUOTE]
Why didn't you bold [b]government[/b]? It makes your statement fucking retarded.
OP, there's this one little flaw in you bonering over a very flawed thing such as anarchy.
It's called fucking humanity, and humanity won't "learn how to respect and love eachother". Ever. It's just not in the basic human nature.
Sure there are people who love and respect everyone around them but they are the minority, and they will never be the majority for the one simple fact that humans are built to kill eachtother, to hate on eachother and to steal from eachother. Just look at our history, countless of wars, hundreds of thousands of murderders, millions of extreme cases of racism. There are too many flaws in humanity and anarchy in general for it to ever become a global thing, and hopefully it'll never be.
Humanity without governments and laws is a short way to our goddamn extinction. Get your head out of your angsty and edgy ass.
[QUOTE=kayOkay;24540167]Would you shoot anyone if there was no policer around?
Think about it and answer honestly.
(and we should call a doctor if you do answer yes.)[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't, and he wouldn't. Lots of people would, the people who already go on shooting rampages in Secondary Schools or in villages in the Lake District or who deal in cocaine to get ahead.
You're a fool if you think Rousseau was right - people aren't all good. Why do you think we're even under a democratic system now? Long ago, the toughest guy bullied his way to the top, and then established himself as king and then eventually a bunch of Barons said to a (different) king (whose family had stabbed and slashed their way to the top) "Oi, we want a look in, give us some autonomy or we'll stab you" and then from their we got a Parliament etc etc.
If everyone was wonderful, why didn't we stay under anarchy? Humanity did not arise spontaneously with Government, we were initially under anarchy.
[QUOTE=kayOkay;24540213]I am sorry but if I answer every single post myself, the thread would turn to :
X asks.
me answers.
Y asks.
me answers.
Dont worry though, am already adding the questions and their answers to the OP so that I wont have to answer the same things ten times.[/QUOTE]
You can answer to multiple post in one. Click reply with right mouse button, open in new window, do it will all the post you want to answer and then copy paste them all into one post. It's not so hard. So far you've replied only to post you can easily refute because they lacked something.
