NationStates Jolt Archive

The United States of Mikkel87 believe that a nation without any social order is no nation, and if no nation it cannot be accepted to the UN (United Nations is for nations ONLY). Therefore we propose that any nation belonging under the UN category: Anarchy, is to be banned access to the UN, and existing members should be ejected. This will also create a political stability in the UN, which is needed to pass good and sensible resolutions.

The UN can not define what form of government a nation has.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

The Black New World is correct.

The only people who can descide on a region's form of government is the people of that region. No-one else, not the United Nations, not military alliances, not foreign pressure groups, have any business dictating forms of government.

Official Press Release

All peoples deserve a voice in the UN

Take a look at the current origins of the UN proposal on Nuclear arms, it's a Federal Anarchost state (yes, it can excist and the idea grew up with Marxism, ironicaly the two hated each other for most of thier lives, well MArx did anyway:P)

Why would we rule out anarchy? People have the right to choose their political parties... even if they aren't political.

The only people who can descide on a region's form of government is the people of that region. No-one else, not the United Nations, not military alliances, not foreign pressure groups, have any business dictating forms of government.

Official Press Release

Anarchy is not a form of government.

Although we are not in the UN, this proposal has made us reconsider joining such a fascist organization.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

anarchy is not a form of government.


I beg to differ, anarchy is a type of political philosophy, and therefore a valid form of government. Just like atheism is a valid form of theology.

anarchy -archy from latin archia... ruler

monarchy... rule by one.
oligarchy... rule by a few.
[b]an[/a]archy.... rule by none.

In addition democratic and republican forms of government are generally blendings of anarchic and oligarchic political philosophy.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

1.Absence of any form of political authority.
2.Political disorder and confusion.
3.Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
4.Absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion.

I'm not sure if the lack of government can be considered a form of government. Since the UN only allowes governments which it recognizes to join, it doesn't make sense to let them participate.

Anarchy is still a form of government. The definition of "anarchy" as being "lawlessness" was a later development from the philosophical definition "rule by none". Generally the "lawlessness" definition arose at the time when monarchies ruled most countries, and was applied to regions that didn't have monarchs. (Switzerland, Revolutionary-Era America, and the like). You can have "anarchies" that are not in lawlessness. Generally anarchial nations convene "town meetings" to make decisions. It's not a state of lawlessness, it can operate in good order as a matter of fact. Post-Alexandrian Macedonia was a pure democrartic "anarchial" system. The United States of America was founded on a blending of the Republican-Monarchy of the Roman Empire, and the Democratic-Anarchy of the Macedonian(Greek) Empire.

Pure democracies are anarchies by definition.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

Plus, because anarchy in NS is simply the result of having all 3 types of freedom high, _Myopia_, which was a civil rights lovefest, was pushed into anarchy when the recent free trade-classified resolution was passed and increased our economic freedoms. So the UN can turn countries to anarchy through the actions of its resolutions, which would mean that, if this became a rule, countries could be thrown out of the UN because of the effect the UN had on them!

I'm not sure if the lack of government can be considered a form of government. Since the UN only allowes governments which it recognizes to join, it doesn't make sense to let them participate.

It's a bit late to stop us now. Besides, we have political structures that might be called 'government' if you use the term loosely enough. It's just that we lack rulers or other centralized positions of power.

Given that resolutions restricting government forms aren't allowed, as the moderators frequently tell us, the point is moot. And this thread is starting to sound like a General-forum-type discussion... :wink:

Anarchy is: the name given to a principle of theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of the needs and aspirations of a civilized being, In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state of its functions.

Which may sound a lot like democracy but not everyone has their voice represented in that system as the governing party is elected by a majority vote.
Where as everyone in an Anarchistic government does have their voice represented because they represent themselves as "by free agreements concluded between various groups" can be classed as agreements done on a personal level.

We live in 'Total Anarchy' because when you look at things at a fundamental level we are all individuals making our own decisions. If we adhere to what a particular group says then that decision is made at our discretion.
What we have today is just a few thousand years evolution of 'Total Anarchy' and we can never escape it for all other systems of government are based on the fact that we have free will.
Whether those systems of government are built to embrace that free will or try to suppress it; the system in question acknowledges its there.

We are all anarchists but those in government are in a position to change a rule they do not agree with. Others are not,.... although an anarchist would say that they are or even that there was really no rule to change in the first place.

Pure democracy is anarchic in effect - everyone has their own vote. Pure democracy has never existed in the Real World, but I cannot see any problems with it existing in the NS world.

The Post-Alexandrian Macedonian(Greek) Empire was pure anarchial democracy (which was also why they were very rapidly taken over by Rome with it's Imperial Senate.... little independant greek "town-meetings" were too slow to react against a major invasion.).


http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")