[QUOTE=Splurgy;15469652]How would the Government handle land sales? What if someone's killed on public land and dragged onto private land, and then the owner doesn't allow an investigation? What if someone kills someone else on their land, then declares that land their private property and established their rules there?
This is ludicrous!
Yes you are! Look at Somalia - they've got pure anarchy. Now look at all the people fleeing in terror. Anarchy isn't pretty or clever.
But you're not free if you're fighting for survival! And that's not even a vaguely correct comparison. Outlawing guns =/= "Oh hey guys! Yeah, we're going to set up a bunch of laws so people don't pillage and murder, and also create a system of social welfare so vulnerable people can be looked after, and then maybe we'll fund research into all sorts of things to make your life easier and then, if you're good, we'll hook up a national grid and then maintain it."[/QUOTE]
1) Yes, there are some parts to, erm... iron out? But really, mostly what you are saying is the same problems we have already. I didn't describe anything new, it's just a normal democratic government that has been heavily tweaked; the problems you are referring to are what we call crimes. But yes, it probably wouldn't work. I do think we are getting closer to this sort of government though. Anarchy is basically the farthest left you can go.
2) Just because you live in anarchy doesn't mean you are an anarchist. Of course they are running away, I would too.
3) Well, as I said in my first post (which everyone seems to have ignored), anarchy can also be interpreted as a state of mind, it's the concept that you do anything you want, and [B]can[/B] do, without regard for the government or other people's ideas of morality. Also the analogy was correct, it's just dumbed down, the risk was the control.
Also, it's going to take me a few moments to catch up, so please don't all yell at once :D
Does there have to be a point? Maybe that's the point :/
I wasn't arguing on it's behalf.
[quote]Then I wouldn't recommend arguing on its behalf. [/quote]
You said that, implying that people would follow a common order in anarchy.
I simply implied that the victors in war never follow the code, which leads them to win.
People would cheat in anarchy.
[QUOTE=Beau_Chaotica;15469947]Does there have to be a point? Maybe that's the point :/[/QUOTE]
Woah, man, you just BLEW MY MIND.
[QUOTE=ryandaniels;15469924]1) Yes, there are some parts to, erm... iron out? But really, mostly what you are saying is the same problems we have already. I didn't describe anything new, it's just a normal democratic government that has been heavily tweaked; the problems you are referring to are what we call crimes. But yes, it probably wouldn't work. I do think we are getting closer to this sort of government though. Anarchy is basically the farthest left you can go.[/quote]
So you're not calling for anarchy, just a "Let's not actually Govern the people all that much" party?
[quote]
2) Just because you live in anarchy doesn't mean you are an anarchist. Of course they are running away, I would too.[/quote]
We're in a democracy. If the people don't want an anarchy, why should we have one forced upon us? It's ludicrous. Ok, I get the whole "anarchy will get rid of a democracy", but what you'd effectively do is have a massive evacuation of a country followed by a bunch of Neanderthals clubbing each other over the head.
[quote]
3) Well, as I said in my first post (which everyone seems to have ignored), anarchy can also be interpreted as a state of mind, it's the concept that you do anything you want, and [B]can[/B] do, without regard for the government or other people's ideas of morality. Also the analogy was correct, it's just dumbed down, the risk was the control.[/quote]
If I ever met an anarchist like that, I wouldn't want to be friends. The idea someone isn't killing me just because they'd get in trouble if they did is unnerving.
[QUOTE=Benf199105;15469797]Still, my point is that even if you are supposedly free, what right of freedom do you grant to the person you kill?
I kill you, for example, as it is my freedom to do so. Haven't i broken the Anarchist "code", by no longer allowing you the freedom to choose your own fate, or to continue your life?[/QUOTE]
No, you seem to think freedom entails equality, it doesn't. Also, like I said earlier, anarchy is a state of mind, so whatever I do to you can not make you any less free; only you yourself can make yourself less free.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15469875]FYI government isn't run by one person.
There are hundreds of thousands of individuals in most governments at very least.[/QUOTE]
But how many officials does the average citizen have a choice about
[editline]03:54PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Benf199105;15469892]You would be more inclined in certain situations to kill someone, if you knew there were no consequences.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't, and I believe that you seriously need to put more faith in humanity
[QUOTE=lmaoboat;15469999]Woah, man, you just BLEW MY MIND.[/QUOTE]
bwaha =D I think they have a cream for that now
Edit: Shamefully off-topic, I'm sorry.
My original comment was somewhat derived from an idea that anarchism is not so much a thoroughly substantiated political ideal, but more a reaction to one already in place..
[QUOTE=Splurgy;15470020]So you're not calling for anarchy, just a "Let's not actually Govern the people all that much" party?
We're in a democracy. If the people don't want an anarchy, why should we have one forced upon us? It's ludicrous. Ok, I get the whole "anarchy will get rid of a democracy", but what you'd effectively do is have a massive evacuation of a country followed by a bunch of Neanderthals clubbing each other over the head.
If I ever met an anarchist like that, I wouldn't want to be friends. The idea someone isn't killing me just because they'd get in trouble if they did is unnerving.[/QUOTE]
On point 2, I think we had a miscommunication, I don't know why anyone is having anarchy forced on them?
[QUOTE=Shodansbreak;15470031]
I wouldn't, and I believe that you seriously need to put more faith in humanity[/QUOTE]
I think you need less. People already kill each other all the time, imagine if they couldn't get arrested for it.
Also I take it back, apparently there are some (illogical) proponents of anarchy who see it as some kind of "why can't we be friends" type system.
Sorry, that's not how it works.
Plus its really pointless because even if it worked, you would still have the same rights you would in a government.
[QUOTE=Shodansbreak;15470031]But how many officials does the average citizen have a choice about
[/QUOTE]
That depends on the system of government in question.
See, now you're arguing against oligarchy, not government as a whole.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15470228]That depends on the system of government in question.
See, now you're arguing against oligarchy, not government as a whole.[/QUOTE]
But a lot of these systems would work better if everyone was a part of the government, and with modern day electronics, it might be possible for everyone to give there opinion on all parts of the government
And on that note I go to play, what else? Fallout 3. Nice conversation though (seriously)
[QUOTE=Shodansbreak;15470269]But a lot of these systems would work better if everyone was a part of the government, and with modern day electronics, it might be possible for everyone to give there opinion on all parts of the government[/QUOTE]
You underestimate the difficulty of integrating six billion people into government proceedings.
That is impossible. It defies the entire purpose of government.
I am not saying it could work everywhere, but in a country like Luxemburg, it might work, if they had the motivation and the capital
[QUOTE=Shodansbreak;15470269]But a lot of these systems would work better if everyone was a part of the government, and with modern day electronics, it might be possible for everyone to give there opinion on all parts of the government[/QUOTE]
My mother barely knows how to check her email on a computer.
I think an online feedback system would be a bit early.
[QUOTE=Shodansbreak;15470336]I am not saying it could work everywhere, but in a country like Luxemburg, it might work, if they had the motivation and the capital[/QUOTE]
And what happens when somebody invades their asses while they're busy with that shit?
That's why you would need to make a easy to use interface, that anyone, even the technologically inept could use.
So essentially:
MAGIC
[QUOTE=Lankist;15470375]And what happens when somebody invades their asses while they're busy with that shit?[/QUOTE]
Why would they, the last time it was at war was world war 2, and it has Germany, Belgium, and France on either side
[QUOTE=Shodansbreak;15470435]Why would they, the last time it was at war was world war 2, and it has Germany and France on either side[/QUOTE]
Uhh, because they're in pseudo anarchy.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15470417]So essentially:
MAGIC[/QUOTE]
Not really, people found ways to voice their complaints before computers were invented. Technology could be a main way, but communication is very important
[QUOTE=Lankist;15470292]You underestimate the difficulty of integrating six billion people into government proceedings.
That is impossible. It defies the entire purpose of government.[/QUOTE]
Also, the general public simply doesnt know how to run a country. You need people in charge who know what theyre doing, and if you let everyone interfere with government, it would be a disaster.
[QUOTE=Lankist;15470447]Uhh, because they're in pseudo anarchy.[/QUOTE]
Why aren't most African countries invaded then?
So to answer the original question: there is no point. :v:
[QUOTE=gww1;15470479]Also, the general public simply doesnt know how to run a country. You need people in charge who know what theyre doing, and if you let everyone interfere with government, it would be a disaster.[/QUOTE]
We already let average people decide the fates of their peers lives, why can't we let them control the government?
[QUOTE=Shodansbreak;15470480]Why aren't most African countries invaded then?[/QUOTE]
Because generalyl invading a country isn't seen lightly upon.
+the fact that they're not in anarchy
[QUOTE=Shodansbreak;15470480]Why aren't most African countries invaded then?[/QUOTE]
They are, by each other.
Nobody else is there because Africa is a shithole and they have nothing they want.
[QUOTE=Shodansbreak;15470497]We already let average people decide the fates of their peers lives, why can't we let them control the government?[/QUOTE]
We let them vote for the party they want, so that guides the general direction, but you cant let them run the country as some big mass like that. It also wouldnt be right, because if it came down to it, it means that the more popular options of government would overrule the right ones, if that makes sense. Thats why the public needs to be restricted from direct government.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
