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

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;24559175]Anarchy is for twelve-year-olds. Once you get past the point where every command issued is a pain and a burden you realize that part of human nature is to do things for the betterment of someone else or at-least betterment of a group. Government is a natural adaptation of this. Law is just a group of accepted rules, so even in your definition of anarchy which mentioned people accepting certain rules, there would be Law. So even Anarchy is a form of Government. Live alone in the mountains and never talk to anyone again, that's the only way to truly be without law or hierarchy. Besides, states-of-head get to wear kick-ass hats, so I would be among the people to abuse the gang-assemblies of an Anarchist world.[/QUOTE] while im not an anarchist governemnt doesnt realize that when someone is hungry they will steal and when someone has a drug addicted mom the son will be very messed up

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;24559298]while im not an anarchist governemnt doesnt realize that when someone is hungry they will steal and when someone has a drug addicted mom the son will be very messed up[/QUOTE] Yes they do, where did you get the idea of them not realizing this?

according to the OP, anarchy is majority rules without minority rights in which fucking world is that considered good

[QUOTE=thisispain;24559400]according to the OP, anarchy is majority rules without minority rights in which fucking world is that considered good[/QUOTE] KKK world

[QUOTE=thisispain;24559400]according to the OP, anarchy is majority rules without minority rights in which fucking world is that considered good[/QUOTE] He seems to think the natural evolution of a democratic government to devolve. It boggles the mind.

I have no ability and an enormous need.

[QUOTE=Juniez;24559341]Yes they do, where did you get the idea of them not realizing this?[/QUOTE] they spend more money on prisions then they do ways to correct the way people act and someone goes to jail for a minor offence they come out way worse and if you steal a car the ammount of money it takes to keep you in jail cost even more then the car does

The reason anarchy doesn't [sadly] work is because the mindset that would make it work is "don't be a dick to other members of your community". Majority of people are dicks by default.

[QUOTE=Strider_07;24551257]oh sorry it was [I]Criticism of the Gotha Program[/I][/QUOTE] Way to spread your propaganda. The slogan is actually an icon of the socialist movement and orignated way before marx. [QUOTE=Fire Kracker;24557326]aka africa[/QUOTE] So everyone has an example of "Anarchism gone wrong", Aka Somalaia. I hope you guys do realize that saying "Somalia is anarchist" is like saying "China is communist". China is nowhere near the communist ideology, it wants to merge communism and capitalism and it fucked up on both. Somalia is nowhere near Anarchism, it got self-proclaimed states of warmongers. And I shouldn't have to remind you everytime that the existence of states and hierarchies is NOT Anarchy. You guys keep saying that anarchy will inevitably give birth to a somalia like war-states, but actually there was never an anarchist community with the ideals I have given in the OP, since the abscence of a state was directly replaced by drug dealers and warlords. And that's far from being anarchy. [QUOTE=defy;24557459]Like any sizeable group of people is going to be fully open minded, accepting and consider themselves equal to everyone else.[/QUOTE] Last I checked the OP's rating, 100ish Dumb ratings, 10 informatives and 5 agrees. Thaat's already sizeable. I know the proportions are nothing compared to what is found irl, but hey, it means there are 15 persons who are open-minded enough to stop bashing on it and concider it for a second. [QUOTE=bigbadbarron;24557647]Anarchy can work. Only the meek and the non-useful will be routed. If survival is the goal than its by no means impossible, Chances are though that it wont be the fucking Stepford Community with happiness and sunshine, but it worked once for a long time.[/QUOTE] Your post doesnt make much sense sadely, but let me tell you that, if an anarchist community attracts only the weak and the useless, a communist only attracts the poor and a capitalist only the riches. Way to go generalizing your greed and view on everything. I hope you do relise that it's nowhere to be seen that an anarchist community takes it upon itself to spoon-feed you. [QUOTE=imasillypiggy;24558877]look at gamestop,banks and wallmart then come back to me. it seems its not the government but money that is the problem[/QUOTE] The subject here is Anarchy and only anarchy. Money has never been the issue, it's the fact that drinking water now demands money that is the issue. A government is supposed to do what's best for the people, and if money fails to meet the expectations when it comes to its use, it's only the fault of who implemented the system and who monitors it. The government took the "it's the capitalist system, we can't do shit about it :)" path. And that sucks. [QUOTE=DanRatherman;24559175]Anarchy is for twelve-year-olds. Once you get past the point where every command issued is a pain and a burden you realize that part of human nature is to do things for the betterment of someone else or at-least betterment of a group. Government is a natural adaptation of this. Law is just a group of accepted rules, so even in your definition of anarchy which mentioned people accepting certain rules, there would be Law. So even Anarchy is a form of Government. Live alone in the mountains and never talk to anyone again, that's the only way to truly be without law or hierarchy. Besides, states-of-head get to wear kick-ass hats, so I would be among the people to abuse the gang-assemblies of an Anarchist world.[/QUOTE] Next time you level up, buy the "Reading the fucking thread" skill, because you omitted it. I keep saying in every post that anarchy is based on community, and you tell me stuff about being a lone wolf and a hermit? And no. Don't steal, don't kill, don't rape... You don't need to have a phd in anthropology to guess why this shouldn't be done. And if the reason is because someone else or the set of rules told you not to do it, you have a serious problem of priorities... And yeah, am totally gay for military uniforms and guns, so if you'r gonna abuse us, you can bet that I will be one of the resistance. [QUOTE=lulzbocks;24559661]I have no ability and an enormous need.[/QUOTE] it's fine, you can be the community's bitch. :v: I omitted some other posts because I answered them in the OP or somewhere around the thread.

Anarchy would probably only work if everyone had equal ability to do things needed for the advancement and survival of a civlisation.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAubP235k5o[/media] Reminded me of this, skip to the end.

[QUOTE=Baldr;24539892]Communist slogan, lmao.[/QUOTE] Was just about to say that. Quite correct, my friend.

Hey OP you didn't respond to any of my posts even though I wrote like 5 posts.

[QUOTE=kayOkay;24539560]And I can give more examples of capitalism, democracy, monarchy and religion going wrong. so STFU. D:<[/QUOTE] Please do. Please give me examples of capitalism, democracy, monarchy and religion going wrong in ways which couldn't happen in an anarchistic system.

Anarchy seems like a bad idea to me. Some of the ideas are nice, but they're really all the ones just covered by socialism or communism - which in my opinion are preferable to a society without government. Also my fat, furious, shouty hostile husband-of-mum is an anarchist. And he's a total prick. Most of the ideas are simply anti-capitalist mixed with anti-authoritarianism. I feel that a degree of authority is what keeps (even if it's just certain areas or groups) things from descending into chaos and thus is important. Regardless of how well anarchy might work out for some, for others it would revert to almost a modern tribal society.

I'm not sure if this has any relevance in the thread at all, but, this is why i mentioned V for Vendetta on page 3. EDIT Scanned in the 2 previous pages [img]http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/9943/vforvendettapg3940scan.jpg[/img] [img]http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/7132/vforvendettapg41scan.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;24564504]Hey OP you didn't respond to any of my posts even though I wrote like 5 posts.[/QUOTE] I did, I just bulk-answer in one post, since everyone seems to say the same thing: "no low == chaos". if I did omit a question you concider important it please quote it. [QUOTE=FreeThinker;24563450]Anarchy would probably only work if everyone had equal ability to do things needed for the advancement and survival of a civlisation.[/QUOTE] Because obviously, under a government, everyone is doing things needed for the advancement and survival of civilisation. [QUOTE=veribigbos1;24564566]Please do. Please give me examples of capitalism, democracy, monarchy and religion going wrong in ways which couldn't happen in an anarchistic system.[/QUOTE] Republic = See half the countries with a "democracy". The same president "fairly" elected for the last 6 mendates, with the opposing parties strangely agreeing with this. Monarchy = Same problems with any leadership, ecept that for this one, if you open your mouth you will be force-fed your penis. Religion = lol, crusades? terrorists? All religions (other than jews) tell you that they are the best religion, and that everyone must join them. Very egalitarian, right? Capitalism = can't really bother with this due to the herrundous amount of times it went wrong. Anarcho-capitalism exists, anyway. To put it simple, there is no perfect system, each and every single one of them had good and bad examples, so thinking that you'r own is exompt of mistakes while answering "SOMALIA!!!" in every post won't make this discussion any smarter. [QUOTE=cheesedelux;24564640]Anarchy seems like a bad idea to me. Some of the ideas are nice, but they're really all the ones just covered by socialism or communism - which in my opinion are preferable to a society without government. Also my fat, furious, shouty hostile husband-of-mum is an anarchist. And he's a total prick. Most of the ideas are simply anti-capitalist mixed with anti-authoritarianism. I feel that a degree of authority is what keeps (even if it's just certain areas or groups) things from descending into chaos and thus is important. Regardless of how well anarchy might work out for some, for others it would revert to almost a modern tribal society.[/QUOTE] Well there is as much socialism as there is capitalism in anarchy, the point is to distribute the power equally among people instead of giving it to a "higher and wiser" entity. It's true that most anarchist currents are socialist by nature, but that's simply because capitalism is yet another form of un-equal power-sharing. And as you said it, authority is not needed everywhere. It's clear that some need to have a whip cracked behind them constantly, but some just don't. Sadely most examples of abolishement of a government we have, are accompagnied by total chaos and martial law, but this simply because the wrong people were there. Exactly like so many governments gone wrong under the wrong person. So blaming this on the concept of anarchy is rather shallow, provided that we didn't have anarchists in a community in the first place. Also @ the V for Vandetta page: am confused lol, is he admiring anarchy? hard to tell with just that page.

[QUOTE=kayOkay;24565312]Also @ the V for Vandetta page: am confused lol, is he admiring anarchy? hard to tell with just that page.[/QUOTE] Edited my post to show the previous 2 pages.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;24557203]All political ideologies aside, this is a bullshit argument for one simple reason. Example: "hey guys i have a good idea. lets band together and take over some people, force them to do what we want. sound good? i agree. and bam no more democracy/communism/socialism/jews." It can be applied to anything, and doesn't really prove anything.[/QUOTE] No it can't. Any state has laws and organizations (such as the police and the army) that are there to prevent such an occasion, making it much more difficult. Anarchy does not have such things, making it extremely easy, and when it's just a matter of getting a few guns and some people together, the shit will very quickly hit the fan.

[QUOTE=kayOkay;24565312]Republic = See half the countries with a "democracy". The same president "fairly" elected for the last 6 mendates, with the opposing parties strangely agreeing with this. Monarchy = Same problems with any leadership, ecept that for this one, if you open your mouth you will be force-fed your penis. Religion = lol, crusades? terrorists? All religions (other than jews) tell you that they are the best religion, and that everyone must join them. Very egalitarian, right? Capitalism = can't really bother with this due to the herrundous amount of times it went wrong. Anarcho-capitalism exists, anyway. To put it simple, there is no perfect system, each and every single one of them had good and bad examples, so thinking that you'r own is exompt of mistakes while answering "SOMALIA!!!" in every post won't make this discussion any smarter.[/QUOTE] I asked for examples, not explanations. I don't recall any democratic or republican country going wrong without an outside force disrupting it. Anarchy would a working system, yes, but the entire concept is based on the assumption that there will never be power hungry people taking leadership over those in need of it. It is this assumption that allows warlords and gangs to take over blocks, cities and even provinces. And it is this assumption that dooms anarchy from ever being possible in the way you described it in the OP. Like you said, there is no perfect system, but as far as I have understood it, anarchy is far from the best of them.

[QUOTE=kayOkay;24565312]I did, I just bulk-answer in one post, since everyone seems to say the same thing: "no low == chaos". if I did omit a question you concider important it please quote it.[/QUOTE] Well I didn't see any response to the fact that anarchy can't protect itself, whereas a democracy still has military and police forces to make sure most liberties and freedoms exist, in anarchy even though there are more liberties and freedoms, it is much easier to take them away from people.

Anarchy is fine as long as it stays inside the heads of hippies, where everything is nice. If the government collapsed and this country defaulted to anarchy, it would turn into a hellhole very quickly. Too many idiots, too many opinions. That or it wouldn't stay anarchy, somebody would end up taking the top job and ordering people around.

[QUOTE=st0rmforce;24568841]Anarchy is fine as long as it stays inside the heads of hippies, where everything is nice. If the government collapsed and this country defaulted to anarchy, it would turn into a hellhole very quickly. Too many idiots, too many opinions. [b]That or it wouldn't stay anarchy, somebody would end up taking the top job and ordering people around.[/b][/QUOTE] this would be the first thing to happen. most people want to have a leader to look to. it doesnt take much to be a leader, you just have to be right some of the time, and convince people you have their best in mind.

If anarchy happened, religious groups alone would tear the shit apart. They are already doing this, but without laws it would escalate to masses.

Anarchy is one of those ideas that won't work simply because we are HUMANS.

Anarchy could only possibly work in a very small, like-minded population. Even then, it's unlikely to last.

[QUOTE=johan_sm;24569472]If anarchy happened, religious groups alone would tear the shit apart. They are already doing this, but without laws it would escalate to masses.[/QUOTE] +1 on that one.

anarchism isn't meant for large groups. I know it has been said before, but the squatters and communes usually work perfectly well (excluding Jonestown and Wako). In a big picture, there are a lot of people that would sacrifice some of their freedom for economic or physical security, and they wouldn't want to give up that option. Admittedly they could hire PMC's, but that's a whole different argument. It's the same with communism, it doesn't work because people don't want to sacrifice the majority of their freedom for security.

"Under democracy, you have the "power" of choosing who will rule you. Problem is, democracy gives you the choice between a set of parties and leaders, even though you do not recognize any of them as reliable." Like anarchy, nothing can be completely perfect. Our democracy was tainted. Just because our democracy isn't theoretically perfect doesn't mean democracy as a whole is a broken system. Oops. [quote=strayebyrd]anarchism isn't meant for large groups.[/quote] This. Anarchism isn't bad. It just only works when it's pure and small enough to be controlled.

Problem is that most people want to follow, its the pack instinct. They may not admit it, but there you have your enemies of anarchy. I'm still for autarchy.