NationStates Jolt Archive

"In Italy they are already speaking about a republic, but keep in mind that there is nothing less suited to Italians...... The Italians are individualists and a republic will become the cause of confusion and disorder. Certainly of corruption. I have no doubt of it. When all this comes to pass who will profit from it?"-King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, 10th April 1944.

Sounds like how we think of anarchism, doesn't it?

-----------------------------------------
"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

Rrrright. Only problem is that that is the Monarch who was in charge that didn't want to give it up, not the average everyday person.

Letila, that does make sense in regard to Anarchism. Interesting.

Rrrright. Only problem is that that is the Monarch who was in charge that didn't want to give it up, not the average everyday person.

And is it the government through the education system who tells us that anarchism is chaos?

-----------------------------------------
"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

Bad example.

Letila, it may have escaped your noticed that Italy has had nearly 60 different governments since the end of WWII.

"A cause of confusion and disorder" indeed.

Bad example.

Letila, it may have escaped your noticed that Italy has had nearly 60 different governments since the end of WWII.

"A cause of confusion and disorder" indeed.

I know. Do you have anything better, though?

-----------------------------------------
"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

No, as far as I've been in school I haven't heard anything of anarchism, its failures, succeses, or anything of it at all. Communism, yes, but it seems that anarchy is not the way to go, from what I read of it on non-government provided sources (anarchist websites)

Bad example.

Letila, it may have escaped your noticed that Italy has had nearly 60 different governments since the end of WWII.

"A cause of confusion and disorder" indeed.

I know. Do you have anything better, though?


Well, nothing that King Victor Emmanuel III said in your quote has been disproved by recent history, so I fail to see how you can use him as an argument against monarchy.

Well, nothing that King Victor Emmanuel III said in your quote has been disproved by recent history, so I fail to see how you can use him as an argument against monarchy.

I guess this thread has been a big failure. Still, I've heard that other people have called republics and democracies chaotic.

-----------------------------------------
"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

I think Republics are the best form of government, and it does suit the italiens as you said. Their ancestors, the great romans, were a Republic and they had great success.

I think Republics are the best form of government, and it does suit the italiens as you said. Their ancestors, the great romans, were a Republic and they had great success.

Right up until a man named Augustus took over. :wink:

I think Republics are the best form of government, and it does suit the italiens as you said.

Who said that a Republic suited the Italian people? Nobody in the thread has even come close to suggesting that except you.

Here's the thing about anarchy: it goes against human nature. There may be people that can accept it, there may be people that wouldn't take advantage of it. But there will always be someone who sees the power vacuum and who will try to fill it with something (often, themself). It's been shown throughout history that dictatorships are to be feared and avoided at all costs, because few if any have ever been or will ever be truly benevolent. And since the people most motivated to fill a power vacuum are probably going to have dreams of becoming dictators, there must be some government to protect the people. The best form we've been able to devise thus far is Democratic Republic, where the people at large vote for others to represent them in government. No, it isn't a perfect system (the electoral college does allow people to win despite losing the popular vote, as a recent example). But it is realistically the best system we've got to work with.

And, not to be too anal but for the record, I believe Julius Caesar appointed himself Dictator For Life, ending the Roman Republic. But I could be wrong.

Here's the thing about anarchy: it goes against human nature. There may be people that can accept it, there may be people that wouldn't take advantage of it. But there will always be someone who sees the power vacuum and who will try to fill it with something (often, themself). It's been shown throughout history that dictatorships are to be feared and avoided at all costs, because few if any have ever been or will ever be truly benevolent. And since the people most motivated to fill a power vacuum are probably going to have dreams of becoming dictators, there must be some government to protect the people. The best form we've been able to devise thus far is Democratic Republic, where the people at large vote for others to represent them in government. No, it isn't a perfect system (the electoral college does allow people to win despite losing the popular vote, as a recent example). But it is realistically the best system we've got to work with.

And, not to be too anal but for the record, I believe Julius Caesar appointed himself Dictator For Life, ending the Roman Republic. But I could be wrong.

I'm pretty sure he was killed just before doing that.

Hmm... that sounds familiar, you may be right. Thanks for the correction! Sorry for my mistake!

For the sake of all that is right and good in the world, Letila, please stop talking about Anarchy.

No, Caesar was made dictator for life in February 44BC, and then was assassinated in mid-March 44BC.

Here's the thing about anarchy: it goes against human nature. There may be people that can accept it, there may be people that wouldn't take advantage of it. But there will always be someone who sees the power vacuum and who will try to fill it with something (often, themself). It's been shown throughout history that dictatorships are to be feared and avoided at all costs, because few if any have ever been or will ever be truly benevolent. And since the people most motivated to fill a power vacuum are probably going to have dreams of becoming dictators, there must be some government to protect the people. The best form we've been able to devise thus far is Democratic Republic, where the people at large vote for others to represent them in government. No, it isn't a perfect system (the electoral college does allow people to win despite losing the popular vote, as a recent example). But it is realistically the best system we've got to work with.

And, not to be too anal but for the record, I believe Julius Caesar appointed himself Dictator For Life, ending the Roman Republic. But I could be wrong.

I'm pretty sure he was killed just before doing that.

How could he be killed right before doing that? That would mean he couldn't do it at all, wouldn't it? So, either he did it, or he didn't.

Most italiano people need to claim our roman ancestry. The only problems i had with the empire is that the emperor had too much control, and there waas too much war. Then again, the key word would be EMPIRE!

No, as far as I've been in school I haven't heard anything of anarchism, its failures, succeses, or anything of it at all. Communism, yes, but it seems that anarchy is not the way to go, from what I read of it on non-government provided sources (anarchist websites)

Anarcy is a big failue. It has been around for a century or so and not one country has tried it, and currently no country is close to Anarchy. Anarchy theory is one big failure in the 20th and early 21st.

No, as far as I've been in school I haven't heard anything of anarchism, its failures, succeses, or anything of it at all. Communism, yes, but it seems that anarchy is not the way to go, from what I read of it on non-government provided sources (anarchist websites)

Anarcy is a big failue. It has been around for a century or so and not one country has tried it, and currently no country is close to Anarchy. Anarchy theory is one big failure in the 20th and early 21st.

Your message here is a little confused. You're saying it hasn't been tried, but at the same time it's a failure. How can something fail before it happens? What you mean to say is, it's so outlandish that no country (it's important to understand that a country couldn't really "try" Anarchy anyway, but whatever) is willing to try it. That is certainly true, but that does not mean that the theory should be thrown away as worthless, it just means that it requires mor thought and social change before it will become palatable.

"Monarchy can easily be "debunked"; but watch the faces, mark well the accents, of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach -- men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king, they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison."
-- C.S. Lewis

No, as far as I've been in school I haven't heard anything of anarchism, its failures, succeses, or anything of it at all. Communism, yes, but it seems that anarchy is not the way to go, from what I read of it on non-government provided sources (anarchist websites)

Anarcy is a big failue. It has been around for a century or so and not one country has tried it, and currently no country is close to Anarchy. Anarchy theory is one big failure in the 20th and early 21st.

Your message here is a little confused. You're saying it hasn't been tried, but at the same time it's a failure. How can something fail before it happens? What you mean to say is, it's so outlandish that no country (it's important to understand that a country couldn't really "try" Anarchy anyway, but whatever) is willing to try it. That is certainly true, but that does not mean that the theory should be thrown away as worthless, it just means that it requires mor thought and social change before it will become palatable.

Anarchy is a failure, because no country wants to implement it... ever. That's why I consider it a failure. Do you consider that fact a sucess?

Secondly no country currently is even close to implement anarchy. That's why I consider that a failure. Do you consider that a sucess? Anarchy is worthless and a waste of time.

Anarchy is a failure, because no country wants to implement it... ever. That's why I consider it a failure. Do you consider that fact a sucess?

Secondly no country currently is even close to implement anarchy. That's why I consider that a failure. Do you consider that a sucess? Anarchy is worthless and a waste of time.

I must say, an honest to goodness psychic? You can really predict the future? That's amazing, and useful. I guess I'll just give up on Anarchy entirely now since you've told me that no country will ever be interested in implementing it.

And here I think I'll mention again that it's not a question of a country doing anything, so much as a group of people, i.e. the citizens of a country, deciding that an autonomous collective, or other anarchic system of organization suits them better than a tyrannical government in one form or another.

Also, I did not say anything was a success, I merely said that calling something a failure because it has not be created by a country is foolhardy.

Your second point is effectively your first point restated in the short term rather than the long term. It's not particularly more accurate, and contains no new information, so I've got nothing more to say about it.

Though I think Anarchy would be an interesting experiment, you must admit that its occurence is improbable, and becomes more so by the day. Twenty years from, the great Globalist oligarchy will have consumed all, and it will take an event of truly catastrophic proportions to ever shake it apart. Anarchy, as an ideal, is indeed a fine concept. Unfortunatly, I don't think it is one which the world will ever see in practice...

Anarchy is a failure, because no country wants to implement it... ever. That's why I consider it a failure. Do you consider that fact a sucess?

Secondly no country currently is even close to implement anarchy. That's why I consider that a failure. Do you consider that a sucess? Anarchy is worthless and a waste of time.

I must say, an honest to goodness psychic? You can really predict the future? That's amazing, and useful. I guess I'll just give up on Anarchy entirely now since you've told me that no country will ever be interested in implementing it.

And here I think I'll mention again that it's not a question of a country doing anything, so much as a group of people, i.e. the citizens of a country, deciding that an autonomous collective, or other anarchic system of organization suits them better than a tyrannical government in one form or another.

Also, I did not say anything was a success, I merely said that calling something a failure because it has not be created by a country is foolhardy.

Your second point is effectively your first point restated in the short term rather than the long term. It's not particularly more accurate, and contains no new information, so I've got nothing more to say about it.

If a theory has no record of success for a century I consider it a failure. If you can cite any sucesses I would like to hear about it.

Do you have any numbers showing that it is on the increase? What's the rate of growth of the Anarchic movement?

Though I think Anarchy would be an interesting experiment, you must admit that its occurence is improbable, and becomes more so by the day. Twenty years from, the great Globalist oligarchy will have consumed all, and it will take an event of truly catastrophic proportions to ever shake it apart. Anarchy, as an ideal, is indeed a fine concept. Unfortunatly, I don't think it is one which the world will ever see in practice...

I believe the Earth is not likely to ever see a true Anarchy, but I believe humans will. Some alien environment will provide the necessities for a functional Anarchy in the distant future.

People said the same thing about Communism....or Democracy for that matter.

Though I think Anarchy would be an interesting experiment, you must admit that its occurence is improbable, and becomes more so by the day. Twenty years from, the great Globalist oligarchy will have consumed all, and it will take an event of truly catastrophic proportions to ever shake it apart. Anarchy, as an ideal, is indeed a fine concept. Unfortunatly, I don't think it is one which the world will ever see in practice...

I believe the Earth is not likely to ever see a true Anarchy, but I believe humans will. Some alien environment will provide the necessities for a functional Anarchy in the distant future.

I agree.

If a theory has no record of success for a century I consider it a failure. If you can cite any sucesses I would like to hear about it.

Do you have any numbers showing that it is on the increase? What's the rate of growth of the Anarchic movement?

I must ask again how something can be considered a failure when it has not been tested. And what's this about the Anarchists' movement growing or not?

If a theory has no record of success for a century I consider it a failure. If you can cite any sucesses I would like to hear about it.

Do you have any numbers showing that it is on the increase? What's the rate of growth of the Anarchic movement?

I must ask again how something can be considered a failure when it has not been tested. And what's this about the Anarchists' movement growing or not?

So why don't you form a commune and test the theory of Anarchy? Or is that to hard?

If the Anarchist's movement is growing then one can conclude that it is a viable political theory.

If a theory has no record of success for a century I consider it a failure. If you can cite any sucesses I would like to hear about it.

Do you have any numbers showing that it is on the increase? What's the rate of growth of the Anarchic movement?

I must ask again how something can be considered a failure when it has not been tested. And what's this about the Anarchists' movement growing or not?

If you want the growth question answered, from what I know there are some five million Anarchists of one shade or another worldwide. Quite the substantial movement, if you ask me.

If a theory has no record of success for a century I consider it a failure. If you can cite any sucesses I would like to hear about it.

Do you have any numbers showing that it is on the increase? What's the rate of growth of the Anarchic movement?

I must ask again how something can be considered a failure when it has not been tested. And what's this about the Anarchists' movement growing or not?

If you want the growth question answered, from what I know there are some five million Anarchists of one shade or another worldwide. Quite the substantial movement, if you ask me.

Impressive. After a century or so you have five milion. Is the movement's numbers increasing or decreasing?

If a theory has no record of success for a century I consider it a failure. If you can cite any sucesses I would like to hear about it.

Do you have any numbers showing that it is on the increase? What's the rate of growth of the Anarchic movement?

I must ask again how something can be considered a failure when it has not been tested. And what's this about the Anarchists' movement growing or not?

So why don't you form a commune and test the theory of Anarchy? Or is that to hard?

If the Anarchist's movement is growing then one can conclude that it is a viable political theory.

First off, I'm not a communist, so starting a commune would be innapropraite. Second off, Anarchy requires that its participants be voluntary and finding a large enough number of willing (and truly capable) members for an anarchist community would be difficult at best, not to mention that there isn't a large enough piece of land in the world that isn't controlled by one government or another, and historically governments have shown their distate for people ignoring them on land that they claim as their own.

The size of the movement has little to do with the viability of an idea. I think I understand what you're getting at, but a given movement does not need to be growing at any specific time, it simply needs to grow at the right time so that it can manifest itself.

Look, you are not taking Anarchy seriously. You can set up a trust to pay for property tax and the like, in the US and can set up a anarchy community. You got to work out the flaws, and do the hard work of experimenting or you will look like a religeon.

If you are comfortable that your movement is stagnating at 5 million I am comfortable with that.

Look, you are not taking Anarchy seriously. You can set up a trust to pay for property tax and the like, in the US and can set up a anarchy community. You got to work out the flaws, and do the hard work of experimenting or you will look like a religeon.

If you are comfortable that your movement is stagnating at 5 million I am comfortable with that.

Collecting property taxes is not the only thing that governments do. They would not allow an anarchic community to exist free of government regulation and policing. You are right, experimentation is necessary, but not here, and not now. Anarchy will happen when it is appropriate, and not before then.

I really couldn't care less how many anarchists there are, here or anywhere. The number doesn't matter as long as the people who become involved in the community are committed and capable of living in an Anarchy.

Look, you are not taking Anarchy seriously. You can set up a trust to pay for property tax and the like, in the US and can set up a anarchy community. You got to work out the flaws, and do the hard work of experimenting or you will look like a religeon.

If you are comfortable that your movement is stagnating at 5 million I am comfortable with that.

Collecting property taxes is not the only thing that governments do. They would not allow an anarchic community to exist free of government regulation and policing. You are right, experimentation is necessary, but not here, and not now. Anarchy will happen when it is appropriate, and not before then.

I really couldn't care less how many anarchists there are, here or anywhere. The number doesn't matter as long as the people who become involved in the community are committed and capable of living in an Anarchy.

If not now... when?

If not now... when?

Simple answer: Later.

Complex answer: When it's appropriate. As humanity moves from its infancy in the crib that is the Earth toward childhood and eventually adulthood among the stars opportunities will arise for anarchisic communities to be formed, and it will happen. Then experimentation can happen, and then we will see whether Anarchy "works," but until then it's just an idea that we can play around with to keep ourselves occupied whil we wait.

If not now... when?

Simple answer: Later.

Complex answer: When it's appropriate. As humanity moves from its infancy in the crib that is the Earth toward childhood and eventually adulthood among the stars opportunities will arise for anarchisic communities to be formed, and it will happen. Then experimentation can happen, and then we will see whether Anarchy "works," but until then it's just an idea that we can play around with to keep ourselves occupied whil we wait.

That's pretty sad.

That's pretty sad.

Think what you like. It's a vast universe out there, with plenty of room for the both of us.

That's pretty sad.

Think what you like. It's a vast universe out there, with plenty of room for the both of us.

Fair nuff.