Poll: YOUR political affiliation!
- Thread starter Akai Shizuku
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Theyre all bloody wrong. And you know it, and choose to follow it? No anarchy for me. No (Currently formed) government party for me. No nationalism or patriotism here, pal. Only allterranism.(All-Terra-Nism) Put it together.
Anarchist society. It's the only possible non-corrupt way of life. Simple and anyone can do anthing they want. Fascim, Communism, Democracy etc., are all corrupt.
Left wing Republican? Irish Republican. ahahaha
But seriously, Aussie politics is a load of garbage haha, no one really cares, both are useless. Gotta love all of the stuff that happens in parliament, our pollies are like children, for godsakes hahaha.
But seriously, Aussie politics is a load of garbage haha, no one really cares, both are useless. Gotta love all of the stuff that happens in parliament, our pollies are like children, for godsakes hahaha.
You may be right about human cooperation in small groups, but there's just one tiny problem. We aren't made of small groups anymore. We're made up of very,very,very BIG groups, and, historically, there hasn't been enough to go around. That's what the earliest wars we know about are, groups moving into a pre-inhabited area and trying to claim the resources for themselves (and often succeeding). Why were the barbarians at the gates? Because they were cold, hungry, and tired of sleeping outside. So we all end up learning that there isn't enough to go around, or that one day there might not be. Now, I don't know if that's currently true, but the world's population is still increasing.Nomad said:
There has ALWAYS been enough to go around. It's just that a tiny minority of the population keep trying to claim everything for themselves.paragon1 said:
There's a difference between 'leaders' and 'rulers'.anarchistabe said:
"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest." ~ Mihail Bakunin
Obviously you'll think anarchism is impossible if you have a completely incorrect view of it.
I, myself, is a liberal (Which, I guess, is somewhat connected to anarchy. Correct me if I'm wrong) but what about the poor? Even if I lay my trust on humanity, I can't really see a society without laws/taxes/regulations.Timewave Zero said:
No, but those droughts and famines could have been overcome if thepeople being affected were given access to the resources that are being horded.paragon1 said:
You are wrong, anarchism is somewhat related to classical liberalism (On issues like individual rights), but all (consistent) anarchists are socialists (In the original sense of the word which is woker control of the means of production, or in other words, workers controlling their workplaces).Insomniactk said:
What about the poor? If you want to prevent poverty you need to start looking into WHY people are poot, and not just what's happening now but how we got into these situations in the first place. Also anarchists are not opposed to laws or regulations, they are only opposed to 'rulers' and people handing these rules down from above. The word anarchism comes fromt he greek 'an' meaning no and 'archos' meaning rulers. However, however odd it might seem on the surface it is possible to have rules without rulers. Rules and regulations based on voluntary co-operation and/or mutual aid are acceptable to anarchists.
And this is where we hit a snag. It is every human's natural instinct to hoard when their is a shortage. People stick to their instincts when the ability to meet a basic need is threatened. If you expect anarchism or socialism to work, then everyone is going to have to cooperate. And if you expect every person in a group to cooperate in a kill or be killed situation without the application of force, then your going to be disappointed every single time.tan-z said:
Well first of all I don't hold much truck with debates about 'human nature', which isn't to say I'm some kind of raving postmodernist, it's just that most people's perceptions of human nature tend to be products of their own prejudices and such. I could make the argument than on the contrary humans are social animals and have a very strong tendency toward co-operation, but then I'd only be proving my point about how people concieve of human nature.paragon1 said:
Secondly I'm not talking about regular people hoarding goods for themselves, I'm talking about elites. Kings, aristocracies, wealthy businessmen, politicians and such fourth who all have immense amounts of wealth which is in quite a few cases ill gotten and could quite easily be put to better use than they're putting it.
I'd say that in a kill or be killed situation requiring the co-operation of everyone present most people would co-operate of their own free will, however if that wasn't the case I would have no problem with initiating force to make people co-operate. I realise that the total elimination of coercion and force from human affairs is an almost absurd ideal, which isn't to say we shouldn't be striving for it.
Well then, I'm afraid we're at an impasse. You have your opinions, and I'm sure you have proof to back them up. I have opinions and proof that disagree with yours, and I doubt I'll be able to persuade you to my point of view. Though I would like to make the point that I don't think all socialist ideas are bad. I just think pure socialism is impractical, and anarchy... well, lets just say that I think anarchy leads to feudalism. I guess we'll just have to wait for history to prove one or both of us wrong.tan-z said: