Anarchy. What emotion does that word provoke?

[THAC0]

anarchy makes me think of stupidity.

It makes me think of people with an inflated sense of entitlement who just want to get away with stuff, and don't like having to follow rules. Humans are social animals, we form groups we follow leaders. It is what has made us the dominant species on the planet, and it is part of our nature. Anarchist seem unwilling to accept that.

To me anarchist are the people screaming "help, help, i'm being repressed." every time they have to follow a rule they don't like.

ironically i equate anarchy with right wing politics because of the fanatical and foolish idea of this mythical "small government" that most of them claim to want. The end result is just having a crippled government that can't provide for its people and leaves them at the mercy of private businesses.

 

[Agema]

Traditionally, anarchy is the extreme left, obviously opposed to racism.

Obviously not, since leftists are, as a rule, very much racist.

That statement is quite obviously utter nonsense.

Socialist ideology explicitly states the fundamental equality of humans, and their rights to be free of prejudice. That means leftists should be ideologically not be racist.

It's also historically dubious. In the last few hundred years of democracy, laws passed doing things like abolishing slavery, enfranchising women, fighting discrimination by gender, race, religion and so on have by a long majority been from the progressive, left-wing governments.

 

[Spider Expert]

14 year old who listen to Linken Park

 

[CosmicCommander]

I don't believe in Anarchy, I do believe in a Randian sense of Government. The Government's only 3 concerns in this theory should be:

-The Military
-The Police
-The Courts

The Government should not have any concern for Commerce, Healthcare, Welfare, just those 3 matters, that way the economy will rule strong, people will be free to choose how they live (As long as it's in the law's boundaries), and the land would be free from any Orwellian state.

In a related matter, I also believe in open borders, people will be free to live as they wish, since you don't choose your nationality/ethnicity, you shouldn't be restrained from opportunities by it!

 

[THAC0]

Traditionally, anarchy is the extreme left, obviously opposed to racism.

Obviously not, since leftists are, as a rule, very much racist.

That was a very silly thing to say. The left wing historically has been the one trying to give people access to their rights, while the right wing is the one that tells people they will go to hell for not loving their country.

I really hope you were trying to be sarcastic.

 

[Crowser]

Madness and danger...but adventurous madness and danger

 

[Jacobistheshiz]

Anarchy actualy means to go against ones government. But teenage douche bags fucked that striaght up the ass. Now anarchy is more a joke, an excuse to get piss drunk and douche up your neighborhood.

 

[Ayres]

Anarchy to me means the branch of anarchism shown to me by my friend, anarchist communism as explained in Alex Berkman's 'ABC of anarchism' also wikipedia has a section on it in the page on anarchism.

Now I am not a personal advocate of this branch of anarchism, as at the moment I have no firm political leaning but of all the forms of anarchism it to me seems like the one that could have the greatest chance of success.

 

[CosmicCommander]

Considering that even liberal immigration policies can quickly lead to massive problems, open borders would be a catastrophe. Another idea that just doesn't work.

How would it be a catastrophe? If you were born in say, England, and wanted a job in a firm, you have no more right to have a job there than an Indian immigrant, Ability in jobs is more important than nationality!

 

[CosmicCommander]

Because a country will simply fall apart if everyone can go there without any restrictions. Already several European countries are heading towards disaster due to immigration, so what do you think would happen if they opened their borders?

How so? I am not getting how immigration is somehow linked to a country's decline

What does this have to do with open borders? A company in England can already hire people from India if it wants to.

I put that in case you were referring to the 'wetbacks' issue in America, or any international counterparts.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I think it is a great idea in theory that will never work in practice. I don't think that people will ever get together without being forced to help one another like anarchists believe.

I am a socialist

 

[Captain Pancake]

People as a whole can't be trusted to look after themselves. Therefore there will always be a need for some sort of government body. Whilst the idea sounds nice on paper, Human seems to negate any chance of it ever working.

 

[historybuff]

I usually hear anarchy from 15-year-olds who have no clue what they're talking about---it's just their way of "hating the Man".

So, it's usually contempt.

 

[THAC0]

I don't believe in Anarchy, I do believe in a Randian sense of Government. The Government's only 3 concerns in this theory should be:
-The Military
-The Police
-The Courts

so you don't think the government should provide any infrastructure? roads? electricity? water?
What about education?
Business regulation?

what you are describing would quickly become a country ruled by private industry (which seems to be the direction many in America want it to be). will the businesses be responsible for building their one road? educating their employees? Not hat it could get that far since the open borders you mentioned would rip the country apart long before it got to that point, ie i don't see to many roads or schools being built.

what you are talking about sounds like a cool idea for a video game or a pen and paper rpg, but not something that should ever exist in the real world.

 

[CosmicCommander]

I don't believe in Anarchy, I do believe in a Randian sense of Government. The Government's only 3 concerns in this theory should be:
-The Military
-The Police
-The Courts

so you don't think the government should provide any infrastructure? roads? electricity? water?
What about education?
Business regulation?

what you are describing would quickly become a country ruled by private industry (which seems to be the direction many in America want it to be). will the businesses be responsible for building their one road? educating their employees? Not hat it could get that far since the open borders you mentioned would rip the country apart long before it got to that point, ie i don't see to many roads or schools being built.

what you are talking about sounds like a cool idea for a video game or a pen and paper rpg, but not something that should ever exist in the real world.

What is wrong with private industry running the place? And yes, businesses will want to educate their employees, and their road. And the open borders will provide cheap labour for the companies, making their profits skyrocket!

 

[THAC0]

I don't believe in Anarchy, I do believe in a Randian sense of Government. The Government's only 3 concerns in this theory should be:
-The Military
-The Police
-The Courts

so you don't think the government should provide any infrastructure? roads? electricity? water?
What about education?
Business regulation?

what you are describing would quickly become a country ruled by private industry (which seems to be the direction many in America want it to be). will the businesses be responsible for building their one road? educating their employees? Not hat it could get that far since the open borders you mentioned would rip the country apart long before it got to that point, ie i don't see to many roads or schools being built.

what you are talking about sounds like a cool idea for a video game or a pen and paper rpg, but not something that should ever exist in the real world.

What is wrong with private industry running the place? And yes, businesses will want to educate their employees, and their road. And the open borders will provide cheap labour for the companies, making their profits skyrocket!

you seriously don't see what is wrong with that?

there would be like 0 (zero!) distribution of wealth. a few (very few (as in less than now)) people would be making huge profits, and everyone else (the vast majority of the population) would be living in abject poverty. Not that they would no it, because the company school would have them all convinced that this is the best place for them.

this is seriously what you want?