Poll: Anarchism

[stefanbertramlee]

Systems can work if properly constructed. Unfortunately it is often the case that the heads of said systems are corrupt. Anarchy in itself does not produce a long term working system. You can't plan for the future for too much is undefined. You need a non-corruptable system which can calculate for future variables. Of course such a system cannot exist in the real world because it depends on people working for the greater good rather than personal advancement.
In short - anarchy doesn't work, but neither does anything else.

If you could get people to work fot the greater good by demonstarting how it would benifit them more then working for themslevse then you could have a working state but it would require a charsmatic leader and probaly wouldnt on a large scale

 

[Archaeology Hat]

Let me tell you something about history. There was once an Anarchist state called the Irish Tuatha. Well as you can see, the Irish Tuatha lived in Anarchy. What you wouldn't expect is that that state had no real wars; only minor brawls at most. Everybody was basically living good lives, and guess what: They existed for 1000 years. What ended it? The British Empire basically took over the world that's how. So basically, if Great Britain never invaded Ireland, we would have a perfectly level-headed Anarchist state.

P.S. Here's a fun read for you all too: http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

The English have claimed Ireland as their own since the Dark Ages. It can hardly have been said to be the British Empire if Edward Hammer of the Scots and his mates were in on it a few hundred years earlier.

Note: I don't actually think it was Edward Hammer of the Scots who started it, he's just an English king well known for bothering his Celtic neighbours.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Ignorance is the enemy of us all.

I notice that everyone who says that communism and anarchy won't work say so because they're sucking off every misconception and lie they told you in history class, and haven't done much if any independent research on the issue.

 

[DarkLordofDevon]

Systems can work if properly constructed. Unfortunately it is often the case that the heads of said systems are corrupt. Anarchy in itself does not produce a long term working system. You can't plan for the future for too much is undefined. You need a non-corruptable system which can calculate for future variables. Of course such a system cannot exist in the real world because it depends on people working for the greater good rather than personal advancement.
In short - anarchy doesn't work, but neither does anything else.

If you could get people to work fot the greater good by demonstarting how it would benifit them more then working for themslevse then you could have a working state but it would require a charsmatic leader and probaly wouldnt on a large scale

Indeed. While it could work on a small scale, the fact is you need it to encompass everyone to have a lasting effect. Afterall, having a small group doing this wouldn't work if outside influences corrupted it. Thus only by making it on a global scale could you ensure its success. And this is of course impossible at this time.

 

[stefanbertramlee]

Let me tell you something about history. There was once an Anarchist state called the Irish Tuatha. Well as you can see, the Irish Tuatha lived in Anarchy. What you wouldn't expect is that that state had no real wars; only minor brawls at most. Everybody was basically living good lives, and guess what: They existed for 1000 years. What ended it? The British Empire basically took over the world that's how. So basically, if Great Britain never invaded Ireland, we would have a perfectly level-headed Anarchist state.

P.S. Here's a fun read for you all too: http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html

Could you, not to doubt you but could you please provide a link?

 

[Gerazzi]

I think it would work, but only if absolutely no government existed, and then never will exist.
Also, no more population crisis.

 

[Lord George]

Market Anarchism would solve all of those problems, its based around people being selfish in the first place, and no-ones better at being selfish then human beings.

No, it wouldn't, because I would kill you and take your nice things. Thus, people would soon learn that it was inadvisable to have nice things, lest someone take them. Thus, your theory fails just as hard as regular anarchism, because that's what it is. You just added 'Market' onto the front of it.

No Market Anarchism is the idea that all agencies and organizations are privately owned and operated, so I would pay a security company to shoot you if you attempted to steal my stuff. Have a look at it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism

 

[Akai Shizuku]

I think it would work, but only if absolutely no government existed, and then never will exist.
Also, no more population crisis.

"There are two types of people in this world. There are goats, and there are sheep."
-Shawn Crahan

In an anarchy, the people govern themselves. There is freedom. There is peace. If someone wants to start something, the people will band together and fight the aggressors. When there is crime, the people will band together to stop it.

 

[stefanbertramlee]

Market Anarchism would solve all of those problems, its based around people being selfish in the first place, and no-ones better at being selfish then human beings.

No, it wouldn't, because I would kill you and take your nice things. Thus, people would soon learn that it was inadvisable to have nice things, lest someone take them. Thus, your theory fails just as hard as regular anarchism, because that's what it is. You just added 'Market' onto the front of it.

No Market Anarchism is the idea that all agencies and organizations are privately owned and operated, so I would pay a security company to shoot you if you attempted to steal my stuff. Have a look at it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism

what about poor people?

 

[ElephantGuts]

Doesn't work, due to human nature. People are too ambitious. Selfishness plays a large part too.

 

[stefanbertramlee]

I think it would work, but only if absolutely no government existed, and then never will exist.
Also, no more population crisis.

what cause half the people are dead within the first week

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Market Anarchism would solve all of those problems, its based around people being selfish in the first place, and no-ones better at being selfish then human beings.

No, it wouldn't, because I would kill you and take your nice things. Thus, people would soon learn that it was inadvisable to have nice things, lest someone take them. Thus, your theory fails just as hard as regular anarchism, because that's what it is. You just added 'Market' onto the front of it.

No Market Anarchism is the idea that all agencies and organizations are privately owned and operated, so I would pay a security company to shoot you if you attempted to steal my stuff. Have a look at it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism

what about poor people?

There will be no poor people, because most anarchists are also communists. Myself included.

 

[FalloutJack]

Proper anarchy requires a V For Vendetta approach to tearing down those in power. (If you don't know what I mean, read the comic. It's used as actual educational material in some college classes.) This is the omelet that requires some eggs, and chances are...it won't be pretty. And even then, there is no entire guarentee. But if it is to ever occur, there is one thing that anarchists are right about. All forms of authority must fall, and it will hurt when they do, badly.

But let us be honest, anarchists do not wish for chaos. There is a difference. Fact is, you can probably make your point without actually killing people, even, and people would look up to you more if you did. What do I want? Hell, I don't have a clue. But I would have certain qualities that enable me to at least put this sort of thing into motion. If I find the nature of government wrong, I would have the desire for it to change, and if I somehow found myself tearing down authority, I wouldn't want to replace it with myself. I would make a terrible leader. I'm most definitely evil.

is the comic a lot differnt to the film?

Yes and no. Comics are like a different world sometimes, as with books. Neil Gaiman, for instance, has creative control over any of his works that become a movie. They still end up different, but because it has to be a movie format with things different in it. V For Vendetta in the comic is quite different in ways. Personally, I liked both the movie and the comic, but I must nod to the comic people by saying that Alan Moore is a genius.

 

[Lord George]

Market Anarchism would solve all of those problems, its based around people being selfish in the first place, and no-ones better at being selfish then human beings.

No, it wouldn't, because I would kill you and take your nice things. Thus, people would soon learn that it was inadvisable to have nice things, lest someone take them. Thus, your theory fails just as hard as regular anarchism, because that's what it is. You just added 'Market' onto the front of it.

No Market Anarchism is the idea that all agencies and organizations are privately owned and operated, so I would pay a security company to shoot you if you attempted to steal my stuff. Have a look at it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism

what about poor people?

Poor people adapt or starve to death, soon enough there will be no more poor people and the world will prosper, well until someone gets their hands on some nukes at least.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Market Anarchism would solve all of those problems, its based around people being selfish in the first place, and no-ones better at being selfish then human beings.

No, it wouldn't, because I would kill you and take your nice things. Thus, people would soon learn that it was inadvisable to have nice things, lest someone take them. Thus, your theory fails just as hard as regular anarchism, because that's what it is. You just added 'Market' onto the front of it.

No Market Anarchism is the idea that all agencies and organizations are privately owned and operated, so I would pay a security company to shoot you if you attempted to steal my stuff. Have a look at it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism

what about poor people?

Poor people adapt or starve to death, soon enough there will be no more poor people and the world will prosper, well until someone gets their hands on some nukes at least.

Fascist much?

 

[stefanbertramlee]

Market Anarchism would solve all of those problems, its based around people being selfish in the first place, and no-ones better at being selfish then human beings.

No, it wouldn't, because I would kill you and take your nice things. Thus, people would soon learn that it was inadvisable to have nice things, lest someone take them. Thus, your theory fails just as hard as regular anarchism, because that's what it is. You just added 'Market' onto the front of it.

No Market Anarchism is the idea that all agencies and organizations are privately owned and operated, so I would pay a security company to shoot you if you attempted to steal my stuff. Have a look at it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism

what about poor people?

There will be no poor people, because most anarchists are also communists. Myself included.

how would it work as people are going to use one company more than another making more money than another and it would be unpreventable without putting controls on the companys thus requring a goverment or other central orginastion

 

[Captain Pancake]

Anarchism is never more than cement for transitional periods between different political ideals, like russia turning from a monarchy into a communist state. as an actual political ideal, it holds very little weight. it's laws are pretty much :do whatever you want, or f**k all. people go about saying anarchism is the way, but those are just the scene kids who have no idea how politics work (hey, without a working political order, they wouldn't be able to buy their precious "anarchy 4eva" t-shirts), and follow it blindly until some new way of sticking it to the man comes along. the people that understand politics, and still hail anarchism, are the real ones to be afraid of.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Market Anarchism would solve all of those problems, its based around people being selfish in the first place, and no-ones better at being selfish then human beings.

No, it wouldn't, because I would kill you and take your nice things. Thus, people would soon learn that it was inadvisable to have nice things, lest someone take them. Thus, your theory fails just as hard as regular anarchism, because that's what it is. You just added 'Market' onto the front of it.

No Market Anarchism is the idea that all agencies and organizations are privately owned and operated, so I would pay a security company to shoot you if you attempted to steal my stuff. Have a look at it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism

what about poor people?

There will be no poor people, because most anarchists are also communists. Myself included.

how would it work as people are going to use one company more than another making more money than another and it would be unpreventable without putting controls on the companys thus requring a goverment or other central orginastion

There is no money in communism. Currency is abolished. Everyone works to help each other survive and thrive, and in return everyone has the right to freely take from resources as they need.

 

[Lord George]

Market Anarchism would solve all of those problems, its based around people being selfish in the first place, and no-ones better at being selfish then human beings.

No, it wouldn't, because I would kill you and take your nice things. Thus, people would soon learn that it was inadvisable to have nice things, lest someone take them. Thus, your theory fails just as hard as regular anarchism, because that's what it is. You just added 'Market' onto the front of it.

No Market Anarchism is the idea that all agencies and organizations are privately owned and operated, so I would pay a security company to shoot you if you attempted to steal my stuff. Have a look at it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism

what about poor people?

Poor people adapt or starve to death, soon enough there will be no more poor people and the world will prosper, well until someone gets their hands on some nukes at least.

Fascist much?

Partly Fascist and partly Capitalist, its not perfect but it beats ideologies like communism and socialism.

 

[Xvito]

Proper anarchy requires a V For Vendetta approach to tearing down those in power. (If you don't know what I mean, read the comic. It's used as actual educational material in some college classes.) This is the omelet that requires some eggs, and chances are...it won't be pretty. And even then, there is no entire guarentee. But if it is to ever occur, there is one thing that anarchists are right about. All forms of authority must fall, and it will hurt when they do, badly.

But let us be honest, anarchists do not wish for chaos. There is a difference. Fact is, you can probably make your point without actually killing people, even, and people would look up to you more if you did. What do I want? Hell, I don't have a clue. But I would have certain qualities that enable me to at least put this sort of thing into motion. If I find the nature of government wrong, I would have the desire for it to change, and if I somehow found myself tearing down authority, I wouldn't want to replace it with myself. I would make a terrible leader. I'm most definitely evil.

is the comic a lot differnt to the film?

Yes and no. Comics are like a different world sometimes, as with books. Neil Gaiman, for instance, has creative control over any of his works that become a movie. They still end up different, but because it has to be a movie format with things different in it. V For Vendetta in the comic is quite different in ways. Personally, I liked both the movie and the comic, but I must nod to the comic people by saying that Alan Moore is a genius.

Amen to that brother!

Also, I do not approve of any form of government. We should at least give Anarchy a try. We can't keep on doing what we're doing now anyways. It's all about risk and reward, and I'd say that the rewards clearly outweigh the risks.

--Xvito, keeping it excellent.