Poll: Anarchism
- Thread starter stefanbertramlee
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Any anarchists you actually see on this site are the "non-conformists", believing that in order to look cool they must fight every system ever tried. Of course, the old counter for non-conformists is that in turn being a non-conformist is still conforming to something. Wannabes is the polite way of really describing them. "Idiots that don't understand government in the first place" is slightly meaner, but I could do a lot worse.
Anarchism can't work, won't work, and shall never work. And we all know the reason why: Human nature. Let's face it: People are gits, and I should know, being one. Give the people power and some shall abuse it. If you lived in an anarchist state what's stopping you from gunning down anyone you see? Yourself. And when there's no constraints on you, how tempting would it be to actually pull the trigger? Human nature defeats the concept of workable anarchism, and until we are all less inherently evil (I know not all of us are but some definitely are), which is unlikely, anarchism that works and sees everyone happy is a pipe-dream of, well not the non-conformists I can tell you that (I'm pretty sure most of them don't know what they're talking about in the first place, they just think they look cool).
Anarchism can't work, won't work, and shall never work. And we all know the reason why: Human nature. Let's face it: People are gits, and I should know, being one. Give the people power and some shall abuse it. If you lived in an anarchist state what's stopping you from gunning down anyone you see? Yourself. And when there's no constraints on you, how tempting would it be to actually pull the trigger? Human nature defeats the concept of workable anarchism, and until we are all less inherently evil (I know not all of us are but some definitely are), which is unlikely, anarchism that works and sees everyone happy is a pipe-dream of, well not the non-conformists I can tell you that (I'm pretty sure most of them don't know what they're talking about in the first place, they just think they look cool).
Anarchy is fairly similar to communism and it cannot work for the same reasons, and yet despite this I enjoy wearing a communist soldiers hat for some reason (I don't live in America obviously, because I would not be alive to post this now 
)
)
cause communist hats are awesomeMr Companion said:Anarchy is fairly similar to communism and it cannot work for the same reasons, and yet despite this I enjoy wearing a communist soldiers hat for some reason (I don't live in America obviously, because I would not be alive to post this now
I'm sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I'm a communist and an anarchist at the heart, but I'm also pragmatic. If we implemented the anarcho-communist system in beforehand, however, that's another story, but as it stands people are just too greedy to act in an altruistic fashion, and, as such, capitalism has become little more than base objectivism. People may think that we're giving aid and being helpful to the impoverished African countries, but we're taking away more than we give each day. We're going to get nowhere if their debt isn't absolved so they can actually get a hand on any money at all, but nobody's going to do that because America is just too fucking greedy (and in debt itself) and Britain is America's ***** in such matters.Akai Shizuku said:
In essence, the system could only work if everybody on the Earth suddenly developed a conscience and [URL="http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html" (title,target)]broke the Monkeysphere[/URL].
Not true; that is a grossly unfair generalization, and I would prefer you to leave it out. Some of us actually understand what we're talking about, and, whilst that may be the case in many places, it is unfair to say that nobody here claiming to agree with the merits of anarchism is genuinely smarter than a brain-dead bear (you are, however, right about non-conformism. It's retarded in its very design).KillerMidget said:
I appreciate that every idea has a core of intelligent, reasonable people, and that if the world was made up of these people that anarchism would be an excellent and easy-to-put-into-action idea. However, I am merely looking at this with the variables we have, the main one being that the majority of humanity will ruin every idea, no matter how well thought-out, and there is no way we can stop that.Lexodus said:
In that you are correct, there is no doubt; what I am objecting to is your claim that all these intelligent, reasonable people seem to have died or otherwise vanished, and that not one of them may be present on this forum. You stated very clearly that "Any anarchists you actually see on this site are the 'non-conformists'", meaning that you believe not one of us on this forum that has stated that they would enjoy seeing a perfect anarchist system put in place (and working as on paper) is intelligent enough to recognise the difference between a glass of water and a disgruntled bee.
Anarchism looks for people to function on their own without the help of government. When the common man can function without a government instated police force, a judicial system, or a leading politician and representative for our country, then anarchy will work. However most people are inconsiderate pricks who only care about themselves. Therefore they will only work for themselves and make their lives as good as possible until resources run out. Then life fails
Where exactly did you find information on it being an anarchist state? I remember reading that it was a structure of sub clans and kings owning smaller parts of it.CkretAznMan said:
Anarchism can not work due to the way people are. If you want a great read about why anarchism doesn't work, John Locke's Social Contract. He's probably one of the most famous British philosophers.
it has the ability to work but never will
It's a solid theory, but as with all theories, it fails to take into account that people might not agree with it. That actually goes for all idealisms. Nowhere has any of them been carried out a 100%. We end up with something halfway there, or comprising of several ideologies, because that's the only way to make something work. People are diverse.
It's a solid theory, but as with all theories, it fails to take into account that people might not agree with it. That actually goes for all idealisms. Nowhere has any of them been carried out a 100%. We end up with something halfway there, or comprising of several ideologies, because that's the only way to make something work. People are diverse.
