Poll: Anarchism
- Thread starter stefanbertramlee
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The "People are shit" argument is probably the worst argument against anarchy ever.
If people are shit, how is giving the state a monopoly on force which attracts those people gonna solve anything.
Oh and here's the proof of anarchy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw
If people are shit, how is giving the state a monopoly on force which attracts those people gonna solve anything.
Oh and here's the proof of anarchy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw
Anarchism is in it self flawed because if a group of people get together and want anarchy (because you can't do it alone) then someone in that group will have more power and tell the others what to do and by doing so would go against there idea of anarchy in the first place.
Also trying to not conform doesn't work because trying to be a non conformist and being different ends up making you the same as everyone else who does that, only way to be a nonconformist is to be you and not copy other people.
Also trying to not conform doesn't work because trying to be a non conformist and being different ends up making you the same as everyone else who does that, only way to be a nonconformist is to be you and not copy other people.
Or for a limited time I could release an extremely high quality product in that territory and sell it for pennies, and destroy that small niche company completely and utterly. And once their remains are gone, revert back to my original product quality and prices.
And I'm sure a super company has never bribed a retailer chain to avoid selling another competitors product.
And I'm sure a super company has never bribed a retailer chain to avoid selling another competitors product.
I like how everyone's reason for anarchy is that a new evil tyrant will take over and ruin everything and that we would all be oppressed by taxes and laws *looks around* thats happened already we are currently being ruled by fascists and if anyone thinks that the current state of democracy is true democracy then.....then.....i dont know what to say to you
George - you're still talking anarchism. There is no difference here, except you're sticking your head under the sand and pretending that the breakdown of society hasn't happened. I mean, good god man, do you think that would be a decent society to live in? Where a man has to arm himself to the teeth just to cross the street? Where only the rich enjoy the protection of a gang of armed goons, and the poor must bow down to them or risk having their belongings taken, family enslaved and property razed?
Great god in heaven, what insanity is this? You advocate a system, whereby I can, if I have money, employ someone to kill someone else? Never mind that this contract isn't worth shit, because they can just kill me and take what I have. Never mind that money will mean nothing, not even gold, because you will either have in abundance, or have fuck-all. Never mind the sheer, staggering coloussus of barbarism and inhumanity towering over the entire edifice!
So, in essence, what will arise from these ashes is feudalism - an elite upperclass, a peasantry, and no bridging gap. In essence, the primordial ooze of civilisation. Sir, you are promoting a philosophy which seeks to overturn and annihalate everything we, as a species have done.
How will we reach the stars? How will we even maintain the infrastructure to even fly aeroplanes? How will we even maintain an economy, when the laws are for sale the highest bidder and the economy depends on stability for the efficent division of labour and so on? Your philosophy, sir, is purest, blackest fail, and I spit on it.
I haven't read all of the thread but it might have already been mentioned but at its most basic anarchy is the concept of no government. That is what it is, and it has happened before and it will happen again. It works until someone fills the void. If you want to see anarchy in action along with the transition to government watch Deadwood. Deadwood has alot of basis in fact and one of those things it happens to show is the American frontier. Yes boys and girls, places like California/Nevada/Oregon were all apart of an anarchy at one time.
That's not what anarchy is.SnowCold said:
Everyone is such a moron when it comes to Anarchy.
It means "absence of judges", not "absence of law".
Essentially, it means that there is no "state".
No giant ruler than rules over those giant bodies of land.
Every town would govern itself.
Anarchy simply does not and never will exist. But lets say it does happen, now you are on your own allowed to do whatever you please. Great, now you gotta hunt or forage for food because money no longer exists thus there is no motivation for anyone to sell anything. But uh oh! Looks like someone else is moving in on your grounds or wants your self-proclaimed property!
Now you fight them, maybe you die or maybe you win in pushing them back. But they cut a deal to split your land with someone else if they help kill you! Now you have two people fighting you so you ally with someone else, they ally with another person, so do you, etc. Now you have two villages waging war. But disagreements tear the villages apart so they need a banner to fight behind.
Someone either fight to power or is elected to power who becomes the king, chief, president, whatever. They glue the village together. Now you have a Government. Anarchy is no more. THAT is why Anarchy does not exist.
Now you fight them, maybe you die or maybe you win in pushing them back. But they cut a deal to split your land with someone else if they help kill you! Now you have two people fighting you so you ally with someone else, they ally with another person, so do you, etc. Now you have two villages waging war. But disagreements tear the villages apart so they need a banner to fight behind.
Someone either fight to power or is elected to power who becomes the king, chief, president, whatever. They glue the village together. Now you have a Government. Anarchy is no more. THAT is why Anarchy does not exist.
For anarchy to work peacefully, it must be a uniculture, and everyone must want the same thing(i.e Nomadic cultures chasing mammoth during the ice age) or there will always be major conflict.
Indeed they are. I'm glad they were part of the Political Studies course in secondary school. While I disagree with most of what Machievelli writes, his idea of what a society with no government or leader would work like is pretty spot-on.Destal said:
An anarchist society cannot form a state, since a state implies organization.stefanbertramlee said:
Also, it depends on your definition of "work". One might say many animals practise crude forms of anarchism, and our forefathers have most definetly run similar setups. The difficulties would emerge when trying to maintain our current standards and structures with an anarchist mindset, since our society is built upon organized and forced cooperation. Also, as some have mentioned already, there would always be some lunatic(s) who would try to secure power and wealth for themselves at the cost of others. The human mindset makes an anarchist society that maintains our current standards an impossibility.
In the words of Che Guevara, "To build communism it is necessary, simultaneous with the new material foundations, to build the new man and woman". Although that quote touches on communism, the social state of communism and anarchism are highly related, so the terms are interchangable with eachother in this case.
Without a state there would be no enforcement of law, making them pointless, it would be every man, women, and child for themselves, abd if every town governed themselves that would still be government, just smaller in scale.Aries_Split said:
No it wouldn't work but neither does anything else. The only difference is that the government won't be takeing us from behind. It'll be everyone else.
But if your badass, with a gun it would work for you!
But if your badass, with a gun it would work for you!