Anarchy: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - General

Yea, good luck with your whole lawless society there buddy.

Rated informative since I'm an anarchist. Nice guide though.

[QUOTE=kayOkay;24539694]If you need to have someone behind you telling you what's morale or not, what's dumb or not, hat you should do or what you should not... You should go vote conservative and leave this thread. Anarchy is a community based system, and if you are going to start a community of war-mongers... well, guess what, you can go vote and they will do the wars for you. :buddy:[/QUOTE] okay fantastic. im not retarded so stop trying to play it down like im the one who needs help. the fact of the matter here is that there are people who wont listen to people when they are right and have the evidence to prove it. for example lets look at the half of america that doesnt believe in evolution. the supposed billion muslims in the world. is this representative of a world of people who dont nee someone telling them whats moral? no. this society will stagnate at best, and degenerate into riots etc etc at worst.

[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] lol..wow.. sitting there talking about anarchy being good because you can shoot anyone you wanted. Sounds like the mentality of a 12 year old boy who plays way too many video games. I think you need to get some mental help and lay off the video games/movies if you're fantasizing about shooting people all day. Posts like this just prove the irrational and detached from reality thinking that this supposed anarchist thought process shows.

[QUOTE=lawl;24540438]lol..wow.. sitting there talking about anarchy being good because you can shoot anyone you wanted. Sounds like the mentality of a 12 year old boy who plays way too many video games. I think you need to get some mental help and lay off the video games/movies if you're fantasizing about shooting people all day. Posts like this just prove the irrational and detached from reality thinking that this supposed anarchist thought process shows.[/QUOTE] way2read between the lines. im p sure he was making a point that in an anarchic society, people like that would do their shit, and you'd be fucking dead.

I don't see why people here say an anarchistic society has to be lawless. Anarchy means no government, instead all people have a say in what happens. There are still laws, and you still get punished by the community if you break these laws.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;24540446]way2read between the lines. im p sure he was making a point that in an anarchic society, people like that would do their shit, and you'd be fucking dead.[/QUOTE] Yeah. That's exactly the same point I was making in my earlier post in this thread. My point in quoting his post was about his "it would be great to shoot people all day" mentality. I think someone with such a mentality should seek mental help.

[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;24540451]I don't see why people here say an anarchistic society has to be lawless. Anarchy means no government, instead all people have a say in what happens. There are still laws, [b]and you still get punished by the community if you break these laws.[/b][/QUOTE] that sounds like a great idea. i cant believe ive never thought of it. i mean it worked so well during the salem witch trials. or when the community is religious and decides to kill gay people or people of a different religion. or mutilate the genitalia of new borns. oh wait.

Anarchy will work the same way communism did. It won't.

The problem here is that you're confusing the last stages of Communism with Anarchism; you believe that in an Anarchistic society you would have a sort of communion, that is not the case. Anarchism is a derivative of Liberalism -- meaning people would form separate groups instead of following a common rule. As described by the Communist Manifesto, the underlying idea is pretty good, but getting there through liberalism would leave the world super-corrupt. Instating a common goal, through authoritarianism, instead of liberalism, would probably work a lot better than then Anarchistic way, but still fuck up as time progresses. (Mad Max style)

Nothing works. Humanity sucks. Deal with it.

[QUOTE=Lalelalala;24540787]Nothing works. Humanity sucks. Deal with it.[/QUOTE] Maybe but if we'd just settle with that, apathy would rule the society.

Controversial threads with political topics are destined to fail here, sorry mate. Even though i agree on almost everything. [editline]01:00PM[/editline] [QUOTE=NoS4A2;24540821]Maybe but if we'd just settle with that, apathy would rule the society.[/QUOTE] Well, almost.

[QUOTE=lawl;24540471]Yeah. That's exactly the same point I was making in my earlier post in this thread. My point in quoting his post was about his "it would be great to shoot people all day" mentality. I think someone with such a mentality should seek mental help.[/QUOTE] Oh dear me, as somebody has already told you I was showing an example of what would happen if this Anarchy were to take effect, I am of very sound mind and am not 12, thank you very much. There are people like that out there, even today some people are just looking for an excuse to shoot someone they don't particularly like very much, this could also be true in that they want what they cannot have and are willing to kill to get it, in an Anarch society this would be particularly true. We are all sheltered to the true horrors of what people can do to each other in because of our society. If Anarchy were to take effect we would see it first hand, I seen myself what happens when law breaks down, it was not pretty.

[QUOTE=lawl;24540438]lol..wow.. sitting there talking about anarchy being good because you can shoot anyone you wanted. Sounds like the mentality of a 12 year old boy who plays way too many video games. I think you need to get some mental help and lay off the video games/movies if you're fantasizing about shooting people all day. Posts like this just prove the irrational and detached from reality thinking that this supposed anarchist thought process shows.[/QUOTE] Go to Somalia. Go to Somalia right now, and tell the people there that they're being immature and should get along with each other without needing any sort of Government. Go do that, and then we'll see how effective you think Anarchy is afterwards.

Update the OP with most redundant questions and highlighting my point.

[QUOTE=DrBreen;24539941]Maybe you like being bossed around, not me.[/QUOTE] So are you going to become some sort of hermit that lives out in the middle of the woods by yourself? Get a job you have a boss holy shit but I don't like being bossed around grr anarchy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man I really wish you all get to see the ill conceived results of your pipe-dream ideology someday. That is all.

[QUOTE=Mabus;24541028]Man I really wish you all get to see the ill conceived results of your pipe-dream ideology someday. That is all.[/QUOTE] We have seen all anarchist communities live untill they were banged by governments. So yeah, am personally optimistic about our cause. :smug:

We should create one anarchist country and send all anarchists there. Chaos is imminent. Hey guis, fight da powa.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;24540160]ARE YOU READING THE ENTIRE THREAD OR ARE YOU REPLYING ONLY TO POST YOU CAN ARGUE WITH?[/QUOTE]

I don't see how anyone can support anarchy and total chaos. It would be like real-life 4chan.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;24540160]ARE YOU READING THE ENTIRE THREAD OR ARE YOU REPLYING ONLY TO POST YOU CAN ARGUE WITH?[/QUOTE] Urgh I already answered most of the quesions, since they all seem to have the same base. HURR NO LAWS==CHAOZ. or HURR IMMA RAPE YEW. Lemme check the thread again.

Anarchy turned the Spanish empire from a huge economic superpower into "that place west of France" inside of a few years. If that shit wasn't going down in the 30's, World war II could have been drastically differant given one more huge empire on either side could tip the scales massively.

Anarchist communities only work because they're small communities. A large amount of social control is present. Apply it to a densely populated area and then it will result in chaos. People are not inherently evil, but we dream, aspire and want to control. Not everyone lives by the same morals and that's why we need a law to abide to. Laws are not only there to restrict you, they're there to protect you. Even with all the flaws in our current governments, it's the best we have.

didn't read the thread don't care to but you understand that in "anarchist states" there's a massive fucking amount of social control and a huge social hierarchy actually does exist, perhaps making it even more skewed than a traditonal democratic system? it focuses social power into the hands of a few, essentially creating a fucking oligarchy

[QUOTE=Clavus;24541191]Anarchist communities only work because they're small communities. A large amount of social control is present. Apply it to a densely populated area and then it will result in chaos. People are not inherently evil, but we dream, aspire and want to control. Not everyone lives by the same morals and that's why we need a law to abide to. Laws are not only there to restrict you, they're there to protect you. Even with all the flaws in our current governments, it's the best we have.[/QUOTE] This. Allow me to explain just [b]some[/b] of the reasons that anarchy can't work. 1. Crime. This is one of the biggest ones. Without some form of organised and coordinated police force, criminals will always be on the loose. Catching them will be exceedingly difficult due to the fact advanced equipment and methods used by police won't be available. Why? Read on. 2. Electronic shut-down. North Korea is proof that without well organised, well funded and well maintained electrical facilities (i.e. power stations, power lines, etc), the country will not have a consistent power grid. An anarchist country will actually be worse off, because at least North Korean have [i]some[/i] degree funding and organisation. 3. Transportation. It's hard enough to get trains, buses and aircraft running on schedule as it is. Don't expect any form of mass transit under anarchy. Meanwhile, cars will become mostly useless as everyone clamours for petrol that isn't being delivered to petrol stations. 4. Finance. Another big one. With no central organisation, the financial system will fall apart. The currency will become worthless. People won't get paid in any universal currency. People will stop working. 5. Food. Don't expect to find food in shops. Be prepared to learn to hunt and grow your own food. 6. Anarchy is unnatural. Some form of organised system is natural. It has been like that throughout human history. Even apes live in groups rather than individually. If anarchy came about, it is a sure fact that new organised groups would start emerge - regardless if it is is a new form of government, organised crime or a religious organisation. It will happen. Anarchy is not natural to us. Deal with it. If you want anarchy, play STALKER or Fallout.

I will answer this separatly since it seems that I have to do so. [QUOTE=Silly Sil;24539866]So to you anarchy is "everyone is friendly and responsible, want to work as a group and help each other, without laws and government over them"?[/QUOTE] Indeed. As I said in the OP, I do believe that its a matter of teaching and how you rise your kids, and with the "right" education, things would be better. [QUOTE=Silly Sil;24539866]That would work if you could brainwash [B]everyone [/B]in the community to be what I've said under the "" but even if somehow you would have the resources to do it, you'd still represent authority, and set laws not by making them but by implementing behaviors in people.[/QUOTE] Implementing behaviours in people... that sounds rather bold lol. And it is indeed an implementation of laws in a different form. But at least, this is communual agreement decided by people and not the enforcement of rules set by a higher instance. [QUOTE=Silly Sil;24539866]There is a contradiction in the definitions you posted because number 1, 2 and 4 are the meaning of the word "anarchy" and number 3 is a short description of "Anarchistic, political form of government", however this is not accurate way of describing it as it is not really "a form of government" but "lack of government" same as atheism is not a religion, however when you're asked "what your belief is?" you can answer that you are an atheist. Same goes for your model of society, "what form of government you have"- "anarchy".[/QUOTE] Again true. I am not an expert in politics or something, but we both know that Anarchy, as a political theroy, means the rejection of a higher state and the sharing of power among the people, to put it simple. I was mearly pointing out how much its mislabelled.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;24540068]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. [b]There is a reason that right now most governments are democratic, and obviously the most successful ones are[/b], 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] Hold on right there, do you know what a democracy is? "Democracy" is Greek for "rule of the people", it's a highly unstable form of government as actions are made based on majority rule and majority rule is basically mob rule. If most people want to put a dictator in power, they can and will. Some of today's successful nations can thank themselves to either becoming republics or adopting its principles. "Republic" is Latin for "a public affair" where government is limited a series of laws called a constitution, the purpose is to safeguard the people from harmful actions taken by government. In my opinion, the republic is the most stable and least intrusive. [b]Didn't read or want to learn about different types of government? Watch this.[/b] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw[/media]

[QUOTE=kayOkay;24541478]Indeed. As I said in the OP, I do believe that its a matter of teaching and how you rise your kids, and with the "right" education, things would be better. [/QUOTE] Ok, that might work for nice middle classed children named Rupert and Sophie but that's not a feasible solution. You get fuck ups with kids; crack whores who forget protection and leave the kids to raise themselves or abusive parents. You've also got schizos and the like, not to mention those kids who have the right education and are well brought up but are still unspeakably cruel. Ultimately, you've no actual idea how to get people to be consistently nice to each other. You have a vague idea about better education and teaching and whatnot but you're never going to find a solution to stop some people being vicious bastards. Do you know why? It's just not possible. This is the reason we developed a police force in the first place - to control the horrible few who ruin it for the rest of us.