Anarchy Would Be Good

reply to post by Ewok_Boba


Yes we need a state to run our lives.
What happens when the state gets hijacked by criminals? What then?
We have to run our own society. We don't need a state to run our society anymore.
NDAA will ensure you agree with the state.If you don't you disappear.
Instant utopia in a can!

Praise Mao!

Originally posted by theovermensch

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by theovermensch

 

Sorry, that does not sound good at all. In such a world, might makes right. Civilisation would collapse and people would die en masse. Those with bigger fists or guns would do whatever they want. What the hell is good about that?

I am fine with less government intrusiveness, but anarchy as an ideology is completely alien to me.

I dont think total anarchy would work. Somalia is a good example of how total anarchy doesnt work. But I think it could work. It has been tried a couple times throughout history. Wouldnt it be cool if you work out your own problems? Most people are good,most are reasonable. I think it could bring people together.

Somalia has a government.

So no.

reply to post by nightbringr


I think girlfriends are a silly idea. I am not giving up casual sex for a girl. I always tell girls that up front. It messes their heads And I dont get jealous. I have no need to be insecure. I know girls that I see regularly but they arent girlfriends. I dont care what they do,so you could look at them.

I dont see myself killing for any reason really. I just used killing people as an example to lead into the topic. But if someone raped or murdered a family memeber I would kill them. But I would do that right now. Only I would have to go to jail if I did it now.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

Text What happens when the state gets hijacked by criminals? What then?

That has already happened. You are living it.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by Ewok_Boba

 

Yes we need a state to run our lives.
What happens when the state gets hijacked by criminals? What then?
We have to run our own society. We don't need a state to run our society anymore.
NDAA will ensure you agree with the state.If you don't you disappear.
Instant utopia in a can!

Praise Mao!

How is Anarchism anything to do with Mao Zedong?

That is a McCarthyist thing to say. And silly.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by Ewok_Boba

 

Yes we need a state to run our lives.
What happens when the state gets hijacked by criminals? What then?
We have to run our own society. We don't need a state to run our society anymore.
NDAA will ensure you agree with the state.If you don't you disappear.
Instant utopia in a can!

Praise Mao!

Agreed. But there is a difference between limiting the governments influence on our lives and anarchy.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Al Shabaab runs Somalia. Not a government.

Those who think anarchy means chaos just don't get it. To say that human beings require government is enormously misanthropic, placing no trust whatsoever in the innate human capacity for goodness, order and self-organisation. Even apes can do it, and do not live in chaos. If we didn't have that innate ability, we'd never have reached this advanced civilised state in such a relatively short amount of time in the first place. People have to realise that chaos is due to the frustration caused by an unnatural system, not the lack of system altogether. Unprovoked violence and theft are enabled by the vacuum created by lack of a close-knit community who have the power and will to self-regulate. This lack of community and ability to self-regulate is the result of centralised regulation, i.e. government. War too is sanctioned by government. If one community, or tribe, went rogue and started pillaging neighbouring communities, small-scale warfare would occur. But we have to trust that, for the most part, humans want peace, fairness and happiness. Basically, we need to have a little faith in mankind.

Originally posted by randomname
according to your theory of anarchism, if you throw a stone thru my business, i'll come out with a double barrel shotgun and blow your brains out.

your anarchist mob members will scatter like rats and leave your dead body there. they won't even give a sh-t, much less care or have your back.

it'll lie there for a few days because there aren't any police or ambulances or coroners to take it away.

no one will say anything to me.

in the end it'll be my responsibility to bury you since i killed you. most likely i'll drag you out of the way so none of my customers will smell your corpse.

you don't want anarchy. you won't last a day without the police.

Anarchy is a pure libertarian society. Self rule. The people call the shots.
If you want pure liberty you want anarchy.
If you want pure violence and fascism you want a very large oppressive state.
Anarchy = Non-violence, maximum freedom of self expression, and property,pure liberty
Statism = Pure Violence/tyranny.

You must be shooting a statists pretending to be a libertarian/anarchist.

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

Al Shabaab runs Somalia. Not a government.

Somalia has a government. It has a president and prime minister. So no it is not anarchist. Sorry.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by theovermensch

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by Ewok_Boba

 

Yes we need a state to run our lives.
What happens when the state gets hijacked by criminals? What then?
We have to run our own society. We don't need a state to run our society anymore.
NDAA will ensure you agree with the state.If you don't you disappear.
Instant utopia in a can!

Praise Mao!

How is Anarchism anything to do with Mao Zedong?

That is a McCarthyist thing to say. And silly.

People that want a state and hate freedom want maoist marxism and a large authoritarian police state.
Yeah my failed attempt at sarcasm.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

Al Shabaab runs Somalia. Not a government.

Somalia has a government. It has a president and prime minister. So no it is not anarchist. Sorry.

en.wikipedia.org...

You are not telling me anything I dont know. Sorry.

Text Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level although there are a few successful historical examples[5], that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Anarchy = Non-violence, maximum freedom of self expression, and property,pure liberty

Thats not correct. Anarchy is by definiton the absence of any regulating social mechanism of governmental or other kind beyond pure individual "everone for himself"-style interactions. So you are right that its absolute freedom, but it has nothing to do with non-violence (countless examples of places and times with quasi-anarchistic conditions show us, that in fact violence is much more likely to happen under these circumstances) or property (theres not even a way you could define it, after all everyone strong enought to take your belongings away from you could do so without repercussions)

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by theovermensch

 

So what would you do if a couple guys break into your mother's house and brutally murder her when you are not around? Would you get a few of your smarter friends together and try to solve the crime and deal with the murderers? How are your fingerprinting skills and equipment? What about your criminal database and other resources? Good luck with that.

No you call the police.

The local community pays taxes to have a police department,fire fighters, etc. They are contracted and owned by the local community coop. Not the federal/state government.

Originally posted by roswell1987

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Anarchy = Non-violence, maximum freedom of self expression, and property,pure liberty

Thats not correct. Anarchy is by definiton the absence of any regulating social mechanism of governmental or other kind beyond pure individual "everone for himself"-style interactions. So you are right that its absolute freedom, but it has nothing to do with non-violence (countless examples of places and times with quasi-anarchistic conditions show us, that in fact violence is much more likely to happen under these circumstances) or property (theres not even a way you could define it, after all everyone strong enought to take your belongings away from you could do so without repercussions)

That is one of the forms of anarchy but not all of them.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by theovermensch

 

So what would you do if a couple guys break into your mother's house and brutally murder her when you are not around? Would you get a few of your smarter friends together and try to solve the crime and deal with the murderers? How are your fingerprinting skills and equipment? What about your criminal database and other resources? Good luck with that.

No you call the police.

The local community pays taxes to have a police department,fire fighters, etc. They are contracted and owned by the local community coop. Not the federal/state government.

One would argue what you just described as a local civic or rural government. I certainly would.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Anarchy is a pure libertarian society. Self rule. The people call the shots.
If you want pure liberty you want anarchy.
If you want pure violence and fascism you want a very large oppressive state.
Anarchy = Non-violence, maximum freedom of self expression, and property,pure liberty
Statism = Pure Violence/tyranny.

You must be shooting a statists pretending to be a libertarian/anarchist.

Or, non-violent anarchists are just statists pretending to be anarchist.

Anyway, what happens if an anarchist's maximum freedom of self-expression means them wanting to inflict violence on others? How does that work? Surely "maximum freedom of expression" means they can do anything and violence is something that can be done. So if you stop them doing something violent, they don't have maximum freedom of self expression?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
Anyway, what happens if an anarchist's maximum freedom of self-expression means them wanting to inflict violence on others? How does that work? Surely "maximum freedom of expression" means they can do anything and violence is something that can be done. So if you stop them doing something violent, they don't have maximum freedom of self expression?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

I agree completely.

To him anarchy is a complete lack of laws, rules and regulations, but when someone does somthing wrong, he argues we should go to the police department that the local civic authorities (read: governement) has set up and charges taxes for. You gotta be kidding me. Arguing in circles doesnt begin to describe this.

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by theovermensch

 

So what would you do if a couple guys break into your mother's house and brutally murder her when you are not around? Would you get a few of your smarter friends together and try to solve the crime and deal with the murderers? How are your fingerprinting skills and equipment? What about your criminal database and other resources? Good luck with that.

No you call the police.

The local community pays taxes to have a police department,fire fighters, etc. They are contracted and owned by the local community coop. Not the federal/state government.

One would argue what you just described as a local civic or rural government. I certainly would.

Ran by the local people in people in size capped local cooperatives.Every thing is fragmented into worker groups. That vote in a direct democracy and own an even percent of the business,service,etc they are involved in.They can vote in/out a corporate president that works for them.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by nightbringr


Exactly.

As far as I can see, the argument laid out makes no sense. If you have a completely libertarian society with no laws, how can you have a police department (Government or civilian endorsed) - there would be no laws to enforce or protect and therefore no role for them!