This is disgusting...

Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
I\'d be very happy to have a debate with you on wether or not Anarchy is "Stupid" if you give me atleast one refrence point to why you disagree with it.

Anarchy is a completely unfeasible notion. Anarchy itself would eventually turn into another government. It is unable to sustain itself.

Hooray, thankyou for making a post I can actually respond to with some content. I love you.

Dude, do you know what would happen if there is no government?

Ugh, responding to this is hard. I don\'t want to write pages so I\'ll try and keep this somewhat-breif.

Historically, there has not always been government.  People can survive without government.

 Do I know what would happen?
Yes and No. Each case is different, but historically, there has been no degeneration into chaos, I\'m not advocating complete chaos here.

For example, in the Ukraine during the Russian revolution, there was no government. The peasents defeated the Western armys and created an Anarchist army that was able to survive in peace, only protecting their homes from invaders. This society was functioning normally untill the Bolsheviks of Russia massacred the Anarchists (First in Russia, then the Ukraine, I\'m sure you\'ve heard of the millions that were killed in starved in the Ukraine by the USSR.)

Other examples are the early American settlers, and before that the Native American tribes.... The Republic of Fiume, Pirate ports on the carribian islands and Madagascar, all pre-neolithic society\'s, etc....

So I do not think it is so crazy to believe we can live without government.

People need authority to control them. Citizens of a country are like children.

Oh come on. You have such little faith in human beings. People can survive through co-operation and community.  We don\'t need Big-Brother helping us survive now do we? Surley the homeless and squatters of urban areas do not depend on the government to survive.

Robbery, rape, murder will be very prevelent. Yup. Anarchy is retarded.

Robbery? Why would I rob from someone who is willing to give me what I want for free?

The subject of what to do with any rapist and murderers is up for debate. I just suggest self defense, and in the event that any one person is a threat to the community, then the community must act in self defense.

But when you look at the reasons for rape murder and robbery, almost all causes of these crimes would be severley cut down on during any big social revoltuion.

If anything, western culture is a breeding ground for criminals. Where any Commune based on social independence and economic co-operation will be a breeding ground for peace and freedom.

Anarchy is a completely unfeasible notion. Anarchy itself would eventually turn into another government. It is unable to sustain itself.

How so? What event will create this government, and why is there no way to avoid this?

Good statement though. But please elaborate.

[Evi]

It\'s true that there hasn\'t always been a government, but there has been leadership, and a lot of people tend to follow some sort of authoritative figure. There always needs to be a set of rules and guidelines for humans to co-exist. For the Native Americans, there was a Chief, and there were the hunters, and food gatherers, and clothes makers. Everyone in a society plays a vary important role, and it applies to most cultures. Anarchy to me seems somewhat hypocritical in that some of these ideas would need to be implemented or everyone would go nowhere fast. *head hurts* I can\'t think right now...

It\'s true that there hasn\'t always been a government, but there has been leadership, and a lot of people tend to follow some sort of authoritative figure. There always needs to be a set of rules and guidelines for humans to co-exist. For the Native Americans, there was a Chief, and there were the hunters, and food gatherers, and clothes makers. Everyone in a society plays a vary important role, and it applies to most cultures. Anarchy to me seems somewhat hypocritical in that some of these ideas would need to be implemented or everyone would go nowhere fast. *head hurts* I can\'t think right now...

I agree with mostly everything you said, up untill that last point. What ideas specifically are you talking about?

Yep, guidelines are what will be established.  Not by any governing body, just by general social feel. And everyone will have their place, that is the real beauty of it.  

For example, the community i\'d be looking for in such a society (if it does ever exist...) would proceed as follows:

General guidlines: No murder. No Rape.

Economically, everyone could pursue interests of their own while participating in community stability.

For example, if art was my thing... I\'d go to a man who makes paint brushes and I\'d say "Sir, may I have a paint brush" and he would give me one.

I would also perhaps grow some apples, the paint brush maker who so generously gave me my paint brush might need some apples. So I would gladly give him some apples.

I don\'t think there needs to be a chief though, I think the community as a whole can fill the leadership role. Everyone working together, it is a good roll model.

!!!!


There HAS always been government.  Just not always in the sense that we see it today.  Even in our humble beginnings we had a family system of rule.  When villages started popping up more advanced governments evolved along with the tribe.  People HAVE ALWAYS been governed.  It\'s a simple matter of the weak needing to be led by the strong.  (I hope that last sentenced pissed at least one person off)

Getting past the whole definition rant...You simply can\'t make anarchy work.  It\'s a utopian dream.  The only way one can make something like that work is by having people with a perfect moral compass.  I\'m sorry, but you will not find that in a small group of people, let alone an entire society.  People take advantage of people.  It\'s how we "succeed".  You can\'t give me an example of a society in which everone coexists equally and fairly.  Oh and your anarchy speech reeks of communism.

There HAS always been government. Just not always in the sense that we see it today. Even in our humble beginnings we had a family system of rule. When villages started popping up more advanced governments evolved along with the tribe. People HAVE ALWAYS been governed. It\'s a simple matter of the weak needing to be led by the strong. (I hope that last sentenced pissed at least one person off)

There has always been structure, not government. Government is a form of structure, but it is not the only form of structure.

For the rest of your post, without quoting specific points, I understand your argument and I am not in complete disagreement with you. I understand that Anarchy is an idealistc goal, but I feel that it is achievable.

Eh, perhaps it is impossible and unrealistic. But I see no historical evidence that shows that small communitys cannot survive without rule.

You can\'t give me an example of a society in which everone coexists equally and fairly

Even in the free society that I am proposing, their will still be bad people. I am not saying everything will be happy-dandy perfect.  But perhaps, there will be a very very large decrease in rape and murder.

What is to stop this from happening? Why can\'t a whole town of people co-operate and be friendly?  

Who is going to stop it?
I\'m assuming you mean the Murder and Rapists?  

There are many ideas on how to stop these acts from occouring... none of which I specifically agree with.

I\'m more in the favor of just doing nothing that resembles punishment or revenge. I\'m firmly in belief that a better social climate, co-operation, and love will destroy 99% of crime.  Combine that with self-defense, and crime is nearly eliminated.

But the whole murder/rape thing is the one area im unsettled on, and I\'m open to new ideas.


Edit:  Oh, and I support voluntary communism. Just as I support any voluntary form of economy for that matter.

But me, personally, I like a "gift-Economy"  Which is basically communism, just on a more local level.

[videoholic]

Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
I agree with mostly everything you said, up untill that last point. What ideas specifically are you talking about?

Yep, guidelines are what will be established.  Not by any governing body, just by general social feel. And everyone will have their place, that is the real beauty of it.  

For example, the community i\'d be looking for in such a society (if it does ever exist...) would proceed as follows:

General guidlines: No murder. No Rape.

Economically, everyone could pursue interests of their own while participating in community stability.

For example, if art was my thing... I\'d go to a man who makes paint brushes and I\'d say "Sir, may I have a paint brush" and he would give me one.

I would also perhaps grow some apples, the paint brush maker who so generously gave me my paint brush might need some apples. So I would gladly give him some apples.

I don\'t think there needs to be a chief though, I think the community as a whole can fill the leadership role. Everyone working together, it is a good roll model.

Um, everything you said is what our entire monetary system is based on.

You give him money because you don\'t have shit the paint brush guy needs.  He can then take that money and buy what he wants since you suck and have nothing better to offer him.

The rape and murder thing, well yeah.  We can\'t have any of that.

[Titan]

DH, Anarchy would not work in the US. Maybe a small country but come on, a country of 250 million members? There definitely would be chaos. Drug lords and mafia would rule the country, gang violence would be horrific. And no, I don\'t have faith in humanity. Humanity will destroy itself.

Well humanity is arleady destroying itself constantly, but Anarchy is a much more fun way to do it, if nothing else.

You give him money because you don\'t have shit the paint brush guy needs. He can then take that money and buy what he wants since you suck and have nothing better to offer him.

Right, but this would be direct exchange, you would be working for yourself, not working to gain excess capital, and not working to create excess for your boss.

[Titan]

One day, humanity will destroy itself but hopefully not when I\'m living or my children are living.

[videoholic]

Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Right, but this would be direct exchange, you would be working for yourself, not working to gain excess capital, and not working to create excess for your boss.

OK, then what if all you know how to do is grow spinach? You\'re pretty much fucked.

It isn\'t really based on demand, as it isn\'t really a "trade" of items.

It is more like, if your willing to give away your spinach, then someone will be willing to give you their apples.

It isn\'t about actually trading, more, availability of items when desired.

It is sooooo idealistic, I know.

Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Oh and by the way, I\'d be very happy to have a debate with you on wether or not Anarchy is "Stupid" if you give me atleast one refrence point to why you disagree with it.

Okay, fine. I\'ll flesh out just why I think anarchy is something I never want to experience.

It has to start by my admission that I am happy. Right now. I don\'t have everything I want, but I know that with hard work and perserverance, I can get it.

That said, part of my happiness stems from the fact that my life is pretty easy. I work two jobs, something I don\'t consider very difficult. I have a new car (necessitating the second job), and I\'ve paid off half of it in merely four months. I live in a nice neighborhood. I can drive my car on nice roads, shop in nice places, visit parks, download music, and do it all with the knowledge that there are police, fire & rescue, and military, brave people all, out there to protect me and save me if I need it. There are advanced medical facilities to heal my hurts. There is an immense infrastructure of electricity, sewage, transportation, water, and food, all of which ensures I will be well-fed, comfortable and sanitary. I\'ll soon be getting loans and grants to return to school, educate myself, and further increase my stardards of living. I want to be a novelist, and I want people to read my work, love it, and, in the end, pay me. I would like to live a life of modest affluence. I want to raise a family. I want to marry my girlfriend and have children and raise them in a safe and stable society.

Without government, with the ridiculous, romanticized notions of ananrchy, I would have none of that. I would probably be some buckfuck subsistence farmer, sharing everything I personally don\'t need. There would be no infrastructure, no security, no innovation, no life. I would merely be a totally lifeless piece of some really fucked-up machine. I would be able to accomplish nothing. My life would therefore be of no value to me or anyone else. My existense would be totally devoted to slaving to ensure I had enough to eat, and protecting my life, because no one else will do it for me. It means that I can never have anything I am incapable of producing on my own.

Frankly, I don\'t think there\'s one single redeeming quality to the idea of anarchy. The whole idea is foolish, and flies in the face of human nature, which is one of competition and innovation. It would never, ever work, because we are social creatures, and when society exists, hierarchies are formed, and from hierarchies comes authority and then government. And as long as one human can find another, there will always be society. The idea of anarchy is impossible for humans. It is a stucture for the mindless, like worker ants or bees. They need no control because they have no mind or will of their own to need controlling.

I want no part of that.

I hope I\'ve made my case understood. I\'ll be glad to elaborate if need be.