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

[QUOTE=kayOkay;24541478] 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] Raising children by some standards is "implementing behavior" in them. Which is fine and an easy thing to do if their parents put effort in it. But changing the way all the grown ups (parents or future parents) think and beheave so that they raise their children by those standards is impossible to implement in this world on a big scale. Anarchistic model of society is great on paper but impossible to implement, unless you can change everyone's values and priorities to the "perfect society member" (change the human nature by 180 degrees) without their consent or knowledge. Therefore anarchistic model of society you're showing is nothing more than a dream and will never happen. It's like saying "world would be a better place if people would just stop fighting". Well, it's fucking obvious and everyone (normal) would agree, however it is also a dream and will never happen. There is no real point in wishing for impossible things to happen. Sure I can dream about a super power that lets me see through women's clothing but it's just a dream, nothing I should put any value in or care about.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;24541370]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] Please do read the OP, you are totally missing the point. :) And @Dave: 1-This is where it all turns around. Wether there will be crime or no. There sure will be, but it will be minimal. If there is crime without police, its due to the lack of major consequences, if the people understand what they are doing, and what they risk, things should be much much calmer. It is the basis of mutual respect, and you dont teach mutual respect with handcuffs. 2/3-Do you understand that an anarchist community IS organized? Often better off than under a government and a leader. 4-Why do you think that Anarchy will bring the downfall of currency? All the actual anarchist communities use currencies. 5-And why? I will remind you that back in the spanish revolution, productivity rised under anarchy... 6-lol. It is unnatural for fruits to get cooked, unnatural for stones to arrange into skyscrappers,... Mankind adapts, if you want to be a monkey who gets beaten by the other big monkey, fine with you, just dont think that everyone is into that fetish. [editline]03:05PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Splurgy_A;24541561]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.[/QUOTE] You can't deny that with the right education and the right environment, things are generally much better. And for the rest? It's true that some are.... "naturally" vicious. But do you need a state and a government to keep a minority under control? I do not say that makind will be all pink and happy, I never said at, I know that things will never be like that. But I am only stating here the Anarchist theories along with examples of it working. Its true that there are bastards everywhere, but a community of good people is capable of dealing with them as good as a bunch of police officers. (if not better) Again, you are right with your statement, but I never claimed that planet earth will be an anarchist state someday,I am just explaining how much it will work for the right people. [editline]03:10PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;24541762]Raising children by some standards is "implementing behavior" in them. Which is fine and an easy thing to do if their parents put effort in it. But changing the way all the grown ups (parents or future parents) think and beheave so that they raise their children by those standards is impossible to implement in this world on a big scale. Anarchistic model of society is great on paper but impossible to implement, unless you can change everyone's values and priorities to the "perfect society member" (change the human nature by 180 degrees) without their consent or knowledge. Therefore anarchistic model of society you're showing is nothing more than a dream and will never happen. It's like saying "world would be a better place if people would just stop fighting". Well, it's fucking obvious and everyone (normal) would agree, however it is also a dream and will never happen. There is no real point in wishing for impossible things to happen. Sure I can dream about a super power that lets me see through women's clothing but it's just a dream, nothing I should put any value in or care about.[/QUOTE] You know, I actually had the chance to talk about this subject with a friend, who happend to be highly placed in a ministery (vice-minister). He said somethign pretty funny, and it was more of a joke than a serious answer, but it states a couple of truthes... "if such a place does exist, all the smart ones will go there." I do not enjoy the way he separates people like that. But he is right to some extent. An anarchist society does need "good" people, and it will ultimetly draw "good" people towards it. Because, as you said, It is impossible to change some peoples' ideas, but those naturally "good" are already Anarchists of a sort, and we will end up with a separation between "good" people and "bad" people. But yeah, just stating this. [editline]03:12PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;24541762]There is no real point in wishing for impossible things to happen.[/QUOTE] Again it's not so impossible, already happened and it still exists. My point was to try and clear the confusion a little, which I hope happened.

OP needs to read V for Vendetta.

[QUOTE=kayOkay;24541790] You can't deny that with the right education and the right environment, things are generally much better.[/quote] Well yes, but you'd need to implement the system of education from birth and remove all existing adults which is a price nobody would be willing to pay. [quote] And for the rest? It's true that some are.... "naturally" vicious. But do you need a state and a government to keep a minority under control?[/quote] Yes, to stop the nasty vicious minority of bad people gaining control. If you look through mediaeval history, it's littered with violent louts killing some people and then making everyone else their bitch. If you're unable to take someone down in a fight then you're basically going to be their bitch and have to do what they say. How do you think Kingdoms started? People killed other people until they were in charge. [quote]I do not say that makind will be all pink and happy, I never said at, I know that things will never be like that. But I am only stating here the Anarchist theories along with examples of it working. Its true that there are bastards everywhere, but a community of good people is capable of dealing with them as good as a bunch of police officers. (if not better) Again, you are right with your statement, but I never claimed that planet earth will be an anarchist state someday,I am just explaining how much it will work for the right people. [/QUOTE] You're saying that if some nice sensible people got together and agreed to cooperate, they'd be able to exist peacefully and happily without the need for Government intervention. That's obvious, but such a situation would never arise rendering this discussion fruitless.

There's a reason why we have democracy and that is because it actually works.

Anarchy can't exist. There's [I]always[/I] some kind of hierarchy. As long as there are disagreements there will be a hierarchy.

[QUOTE=kayOkay;24541790]And @Dave: 1-This is where it all turns around. Wether there will be crime or no. There sure will be, but it will be minimal. If there is crime without police, its due to the lack of major consequences, if the people understand what they are doing, and what they risk, things should be much much calmer. It is the basis of mutual respect, and you dont teach mutual respect with handcuffs. 2/3-Do you understand that an anarchist community IS organized? Often better off than under a government and a leader. 4-Why do you think that Anarchy will bring the downfall of currency? All the actual anarchist communities use currencies. 5-And why? I will remind you that back in the spanish revolution, productivity rised under anarchy... 6-lol. It is unnatural for fruits to get cooked, unnatural for stones to arrange into skyscrappers,... Mankind adapts, if you want to be a monkey who gets beaten by the other big monkey, fine with you, just dont think that everyone is into that fetish. [/QUOTE] 1. If you really believe that crime will decrease with no form of deterrent in place, then you have quite a few screws lose in your head. You really think all crime takes place purely because people are trying to say "fuck da police"? No. It happens for a variety of reasons, and by removing any kind of law enforcement would give another reason for people to commit crimes: simply because they can. 2/3. You even said yourself that anarchy is "Confusion; chaos; disorder". In that case, these groups you talk of are not - by your definition - even anarchists (how can a group promoting disorder be orderly?) and thus your point is moot. 4. See my above point. Effective economic management requires order and organisation, which anarchy is against. 5. True, but take into account that this was during the civil war. Wars have always brought people together and united with a common goal. Production has always gone up during times of conflict, and it is possible that it is nothing more than a side-effect of the civil war. 6. What? You are making a retarded point here. You are comparing a fruit and an inanimate object to a sentient being? Of course mankind adapts - but that doesn't mean that we will adapt to [b]everything[/b]. If that were the case, why aren't we living in the sun? Besides, you have still avoided my point. If you implement anarchy on a large scale (e.g. countrywide) you will have organised groups emerging from the vacuum. Don't believe me? Then why is Spain not anarchist still?

[QUOTE=Splurgy_A;24542668]Well yes, but you'd need to implement the system of education from birth and remove all existing adults which is a price nobody would be willing to pay.[/QUOTE] Not really, there are quite some responsible adults around. Enough to have something of a decent size, its just the lack of knowledge and mis-information that keeps them scattered. [QUOTE]Yes, to stop the nasty vicious minority of bad people gaining control. If you look through mediaeval history, it's littered with violent louts killing some people and then making everyone else their bitch. If you're unable to take someone down in a fight then you're basically going to be their bitch and have to do what they say. How do you think Kingdoms started? People killed other people until they were in charge.[/QUOTE] And I hope that the major collective mind of mankind grew beyond regular skirmishes for power. Which is why we dont have as much battles as we used to. It is a good sign, and we might get better someday. [QUOTE]You're saying that if some nice sensible people got together and agreed to cooperate, they'd be able to exist peacefully and happily without the need for Government intervention. That's obvious, but such a situation would never arise rendering this discussion fruitless.[/QUOTE] But it did arise, and it still does. And as I said this thread's point was to lay don the difference between chaos and anarchy, which some got, and some didnt. And this discussion is far away from useless, I did at least grind my debating skills a little, even though I still have a lot of work to do. :v:

-snip-

[QUOTE=BrQ;24542744]There's a reason why we have democracy and that is because it actually works.[/QUOTE] Democracy is shit by itself. If everyone votes for something terrible it gets passed. You need at the very least a constitutional democracy with a reasonable bill of rights to protect the population's well-being. And even then you need a good balance so that the country doesn't restrict everyone in the name of some people's feelings or something. Making a government that works is pretty hard.

-snip-

[QUOTE=creefer;24543023]Democracy is shit by itself. If everyone votes for something terrible it gets passed. You need at the very least a constitutional democracy with a reasonable bill of rights to protect the population's well-being. And even then you need a good balance so that the country doesn't restrict everyone in the name of some people's feelings or something. Making a government that works is pretty hard.[/QUOTE] It's the best we have at the moment.

[QUOTE=Eluveitie;24542983]I saw no anarchy in that movie. V was a terrorist. The current government was totalitarianist and V's pure motive was vengeance.[/QUOTE] OP needs to READ V for Vendetta. READ it. Like all great graphic novels, the book is not only far better, but completely different to the movie they make out of it.

I told you, we're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.

[QUOTE=Eluveitie;24543103]It's the best we have at the moment.[/QUOTE] We don't have pure democracy. We have what I outlined, which is a constitutional democracy with a bill of rights. Democracy is good because it serves the majority, but that's also potentially dangerous for the minority.

[QUOTE=johnnyIERB;24543153]OP needs to READ V for Vendetta. READ it. Like all great graphic novels, the book is not only far better, but completely different to the movie they make out of it.[/QUOTE] Bleh misread that. Disregard my post. Good novel though.

1. Anarchy is a social system, not just taking off the police and sitting all day doing whatever you want. 2/3/4. I rate you bad reading. These are definition of the same word, but the same word means different things. I keep saying it all over: Anarchy is not the lack of organization. Gosh.. how old are you for not getting that? 5. Maybe, but sadely we dont have any real examples or experiences about this, since anarchists arent taken into account. 6. Mankind learns. It used to be despotism, then it became monarchy and warlords, then it became democracy,... The mot logical step would be anarchy. :v: Back then they had to fight against the ruling dude, Franco, and the communist party separated from the anarchist syndicalist to side with the soviets who were supporting them. they fucked up, the anarchists lost, and spain went back under control of the head gov't.[/QUOTE]

It's ridiculous how this guy gets laughed off, whereas the guy who made a communist thread was completely accepted. Maybe anarchy is too far, but Libertarianism is probably a better system than communism, in my opinion at least. I like having the freedom to go where I want, do what I want (within reason), when I want.

I don't believe that managing a society such as the one we have today is possible with an anarchistic system (or lack of system :downs:), this kind of anarchism (along with all other ideologies) naively assume that every man will work towards the common and greater good. I still call myself an anarchist, though, because there sure as shit ain't no old men in suits or some laws written in old books that are going to tell me what to do and what not to do.

[QUOTE=creefer;24543229]We don't have pure democracy. We have what I outlined, which is a constitutional democracy with a bill of rights. Democracy is good because it serves the majority, but that's also potentially dangerous for the minority.[/QUOTE] I suppose it sucks for that minority then. You can't do what everyone wants. The vast majority wants democracy and so far it has served well for many.

You will have a day of true anarchy and then you will have law, messed up and immoral law but still law.

[QUOTE=Chrille;24543487]I don't believe that managing a society such as the one we have today is possible with an anarchistic system (or lack of system :downs:), this kind of anarchism (along with all other ideologies) naively assume that every man will work towards the common and greater good. I still call myself an anarchist, though, because there sure as shit ain't no old men in suits or some laws written in old books that are going to tell me what to do and what not to do.[/QUOTE] So you're an illegalist of sorts? Join the club, we had cookies, but a member stole them all.

ITT: Anarchy is not chaos even though the definition is chaos.

[QUOTE=kayOkay;24543274]1. Anarchy is a social system, not just taking off the police and sitting all day doing whatever you want. 2/3/4. I rate you bad reading. These are definition of the same word, but the same word means different things. I keep saying it all over: Anarchy is not the lack of organization. Gosh.. how old are you for not getting that? 5. Maybe, but sadely we dont have any real examples or experiences about this, since anarchists arent taken into account. 6. Mankind learns. It used to be despotism, then it became monarchy and warlords, then it became democracy,... The mot logical step would be anarchy. :v: Back then they had to fight against the ruling dude, Franco, and the communist party separated from the anarchist syndicalist to side with the soviets who were supporting them. they fucked up, the anarchists lost, and spain went back under control of the head gov't.[/QUOTE] 1. A social system cannot substitute or replace any kind of law enforcement. To that end, my point stands - crime will rise due to lack of [b]effective[/b] deterrent and rehabilitation. 2. 2/3/4. You can say the same thing as many times as you want, but you will still never make any sense. You said it yourself, and I even quoted you, that anarchy was disorder. And anarchy [b]is[/b] the lack of organisation - I quote 'organise' from the dictionary: "…arrange systematically; order…". [b]Order[/b]. Completely contradictory to disorder. You cannot be both orderly and disorderly. That would be like saying Hitler was a peaceful warmonger. 6. Why would humanity abandon a perfectly good form of government? That makes no sense. Unless something better comes along (and anarchy is not better - as agreed by the majority of people) it will remain as so. Also, if anarchy was so successful, then surely the Spanish would have been able to overcome all their opponents.

[QUOTE=Viper the Tiger;24543620]ITT: Anarchy is not chaos even though the definition is chaos.[/QUOTE] Anarchy AKA the political system doesn't refer to chaos, it refers to a social system which has no leaders or enforcers, leaving such issues to the peoples of the nation.

[QUOTE=BrQ;24543506]I suppose it sucks for that minority then. You can't do what everyone wants. The vast majority wants democracy and so far it has served well for many.[/QUOTE] But it's not pure democracy, like I said. And that's a good thing. I think a lot of Americans don't actually understand that they don't live in a pure democracy. Hell, people don't even have a vote on big issues, their elected representatives do. Even then, those elected can serve their own interests and fuck over their voters until their term is over. I always hear shit like "democracy is the best system, look at all the freedoms it gives us, etc". The problem here is that those freedoms come from the country's constitution and bill of rights, not democracy. In a pure democracy you could have your freedoms taken away if the majority decided they wanted to. Bottom line: Democracy has very little to do with personal freedoms/rights. [editline]11:53AM[/editline] [QUOTE=strayebyrd;24543678]Anarchy AKA the political system doesn't refer to chaos, it refers to a social system which has no leaders or enforcers, leaving such issues to the peoples of the nation.[/QUOTE] And you don't think that would be chaotic? Gee what's going to unify the interests of the nation? Oh yeah, nothing. It wouldn't be a nation anymore, it would be a bunch of groups serving their own interests.

Democracy is just a checklist that is constantly being added to in order to make it sound more attractive Not saying that a lot of the benefits don't work out well - just that many of them are not unique to a democracy

[QUOTE=kayOkay;24539641]Christiania existed for nearly 40 years, and is still alive. :smug:[/QUOTE] Doesn't Christiana only have about 800 people?

I'm both amazed and confused as to how a thread about Anarchy has more intelligent discussion than a thread about Communism. [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=984305&page=4[/url]

[QUOTE=creefer;24543728]And you don't think that would be chaotic? Gee what's going to unify the interests of the nation? Oh yeah, nothing. It wouldn't be a nation anymore, it would be a bunch of groups serving their own interests.[/QUOTE] Yes, that's the idea. But in theory, people would act under a personal self interest to live as long as possible, in this they would work together to function properly. Obviously it's only wishful thinking, but so is the majority of most governmental systems that offer something good. Communism? Large amounts of state control. Democracy? Giving every dumbfuck a chance to vote on serious matters. Anarchy? The possibility of people acting maliciously.