NationStates Jolt Archive

i dont know how people can advocat this crock of shit and keep a straight face while doing so.

i dont know how people can advocat this crock of shit and keep a straight face while doing so.

they obviously have not been wearing their tin foil hats

i dont know how people can advocat this crock of shit and keep a straight face while doing so.

they obviously have not been wearing their tin foil hats

obviously

i dont know how people can advocat this crock of shit and keep a straight face while doing so.

Ah, nothing like informed intellectual critique...

What a well constructed and nicely thought out argument. I heartily commend you.

Anything taken to extremes is stupid.

i dont know how people can advocat this crock of shit and keep a straight face while doing so.

What system would you prefer?

i dont know how people can advocat this crock of shit and keep a straight face while doing so.

What system would you prefer?

what we have now is working just finr thank you very much

Ohh yeah.... just fine... you can't possibly be satisfied with every aspect of any system.

i dont know how people can advocat this crock of shit and keep a straight face while doing so.

troll much?

i dont know how people can advocat this crock of shit and keep a straight face while doing so.

What system would you prefer?

what we have now is working just finr thank you very much

Because rampant homelessness and unemployment are good things.

GV--what is your deal tonight?

I'm guessing drugs are his deal tonight.

i dont know how people can advocat this crock of shit and keep a straight face while doing so.

troll much?

With that bait he won't catch many fish.

With that bait he won't catch many fish.

yeah, it's not nearly shiny enough

okay, im a troll for saying anarchy is stupid. but whoever started that bush sucks thing isnt?

If they don't present any sort of argument and try to show people why they think so in a logical and reasonable manner, then yes they are trolling too

Who do you hold responsible when anarchy goes wrong? :?

okay, im a troll for saying anarchy is stupid. but whoever started that bush sucks thing isnt?

You can call anarchy stupid all you want, some arguments to back up the claim wouldn't go amiss.

My personal rule for NS: avoid any topic that contains the words "Bush" or "Kerry" - they seem to be breeding grounds for a particular kind of insanity

If they don't present any sort of argument and try to show people why they think so in a logical and reasonable manner, then yes they are trolling too

well, they didnt

Who do you hold responsible when anarchy goes wrong? :?

those who make it go wrong probably

Who do you hold responsible when anarchy goes wrong? :?

Letila.


j/k.

okay, im a troll for saying anarchy is stupid. but whoever started that bush sucks thing isnt?

You can call anarchy stupid all you want, some arguments to back up the claim wouldn't go amiss.

My personal rule for NS: avoid any topic that contains the words "Bush" or "Kerry" - they seem to be breeding grounds for a particular kind of insanity

And it isn't even the fun kind like I have. :P

If they don't present any sort of argument and try to show people why they think so in a logical and reasonable manner, then yes they are trolling too

well, they didnt

The point is that you are not either. Just because they don't, doesn't make it okay for you to do it too

okay, im a troll for saying anarchy is stupid. but whoever started that bush sucks thing isnt?

"I broke the rules, but someone else did as well, so that makes it okay."?

Who do you hold responsible when anarchy goes wrong? :?

My questions:
1. How would you know if anarchy had gone wrong? By what standards?
2. Why do you need to find someone to hold responsible? What does that fix, or why is it important to you?

Who do you hold responsible when anarchy goes wrong? :?

My questions:
1. How would you know if anarchy had gone wrong? By what standards?
2. Why do you need to find someone to hold responsible? What does that fix, or why is it important to you?

1: Maybe if people start recognizing and succumbing to authority again?

2: If whoever screwed something up is still around, he could screw it up again. Look at Henry Kissinger. :wink:

Who do you hold responsible when anarchy goes wrong? :?

Yourself.

Much as I hate to resort to quoting Thomas Jefferson - "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

Who do you hold responsible when anarchy goes wrong? :?

Yourself.

Much as I hate to resort to quoting Thomas Jefferson - "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

To which the best response is, "I'll wait for a sale." :D

What's the best form of government? Well, Plato believed it to be an aristocracy. In fact, he warned against a democracy, believing it would lead to chaos, and ultimatly an anarcy that becomes united under a tyrant.

Machiavelli, on the other hand, places cemocracy and anarchy on the same coin. In both cases, it is "the people" who, in essense, rule. It was, in fact, he that stated the idea of a republic was to combine a monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy into one form. This was eventually expanded in the 17th and 18th century, and became the government we are technically supposed to have now.

Anarchy does not work for the same reason that Communism doesn't work; both rely on people to be selfless and giving. In an anarchy, there are no rules, which makes one believe that there is ultimate freedom. However, without laws, there are no rights; Laws exist (or at least, are supposed to exist) to maintain everyone has their equal rights. The real question is, how much freedom do you give in order to make sure the rest of your freedoms are secure?

In an anarchy, there is no security. The only way for this to work is for everyone to respect natural laws, such as the ones Locke once put out. However, Hobbes came to the conclusion that in order for these natural laws to be ensured, a government must be created.

And thus, the paradox of anarchy. Anarchy does not give total freedom to everyone, but instead only opens the way to tyranny and despotism. And since these two are both technically forms of government, an anarchy can never fully exist.

In an anarchy, there are no rules, which makes one believe that there is ultimate freedom.

Nope. Anarchy means "no rulers", not "no rules", from the Greek an- meaning 'without' and -archos meaning 'ruler'.

Ah, but without rulers, who enforces the rules?

Ah, but without rulers, who enforces the rules?

Think about it: whom is left to do so?

The strongest, thus leading up to a tyranny/despotism, as I said :p

Like anyone else who has lived in East Africa will attest, anarchy sucks.
Oh, bitch bitch bitch, they won't let you skateboard wherever you want to. i didn't see you pushing the firefighters away from your house when it got firebombed by someone who wanted your DVD player. Your garage band doesn't need society, huh?

Pietas, Fidelis, Gloria.

Anything taken to extremes is stupid.

Isn't that itself an extremist statement? It smacks of "Every rule has an exception."

i dont know how people can advocat this crock of shit and keep a straight face while doing so.

What system would you prefer?

what we have now is working just finr thank you very much

Because rampant homelessness and unemployment are good things.

Well in anarchy those who are unemployed would most surely be homeless! And more people would probably be unemployed.

Anything taken to extremes is stupid.

Isn't that itself an extremist statement? It smacks of "Every rule has an exception."

YIELDS FALSEHOOD WHEN PRECEDED BY ITS QUOTATION!

YIELDS FALSEHOOD WHEN PRECEDED BY ITS QUOTATION!

Quit your Quining.

Like anyone else who has lived in East Africa will attest, anarchy sucks.
Oh, bitch bitch bitch, they won't let you skateboard wherever you want to. i didn't see you pushing the firefighters away from your house when it got firebombed by someone who wanted your DVD player. Your garage band doesn't need society, huh?

Pietas, Fidelis, Gloria.

The same argument applies to Libertarians. The day i see a Libertarian offer to pay the firefighters competitive rates, i'll eat this statement. Until then, it stands.

PFG.

Anything taken to extremes is stupid.

Isn't that itself an extremist statement? It smacks of "Every rule has an exception."

YIELDS FALSEHOOD WHEN PRECEDED BY ITS QUOTATION!

Oh the beauty of self-reference.

My personal favorite: This sentence has cabbage six words.

Not the same sort of self-contradiction, but still great. I've got an article laying around somewhere with a ton more self-referential and self-contradicting statements like those.

Well in anarchy those who are unemployed would most surely be homeless! And more people would probably be unemployed.

What makes you think that?

Well in anarchy those who are unemployed would most surely be homeless! And more people would probably be unemployed.

What makes you think that?

Who's going to employ you when the system breaks down, huh?
You think you can keep up your free market?
Go read my earlier post, regarding libertarians, on page two.
While you do, i'm going to join the raiding parties.

Pietas, Fidelis, Gloria.

Anarchy is in a rut. No country has ever embraced it. And none will. Anarchists do not run experiments to see if it works. And no country is even close to being a Anarchic type government. Anarchy is an unmitigated failure. It is the Backstreet Boys of political systems.

Yeah, that's right, everybody shuts up when i get on the topic.
They know what's good for 'em.
That's why i don't even have 100 posts yet, even though i'm one of the older nations.

PFG.

Well in anarchy those who are unemployed would most surely be homeless! And more people would probably be unemployed.

What makes you think that?

Who's going to employ you when the system breaks down, huh?
You think you can keep up your free market?
Go read my earlier post, regarding libertarians, on page two.
While you do, i'm going to join the raiding parties.

Pietas, Fidelis, Gloria.

First off, no one said anything about a system breaking down. Second off, you need not maintain the free market, although that is one system which could potentially work in an anarchist community. There are always going to be people who are unemployed. All creation comes from destruction, that's just the way things go, conservation of order. Non-capitalist communities could also work for Anarchy, if we assume that Anarchy means modified Anarchy so that it's reasonably possible. Some would argue that this necessity of qualification lessens the meaning of the word and the idea, but I find that if we only restrict an idea to make it possible there is no need to change the name. So if we're talking about limiting the idea of Anarchy such that it is actually possible then it is basically a pacifistic society otherwise identical to any other. The only difference between Capitalism in the U.S. today, for example, and Anarcho-Capitalism would be the use of force for the maintainance of social order. Of course this requires that all members of the society be willing to participate in the system and that the community be isolated from outsiders who would not be willing to cooperate, but placing a system in a vacuum to make it more reasonable is a tried and true method for social engineering.

Anarchy is in a rut. No country has ever embraced it. And none will. ... And no country is even close to being a Anarchic type government.

You've obviously never lived in East Africa.

Pietas, Fidelis, Gloria.

Yeah, that's right, everybody shuts up when i get on the topic.
They know what's good for 'em.
That's why i don't even have 100 posts yet, even though i'm one of the older nations.

PFG.

Wow, you have been here for a while. I've been around since March of 2003, but I've never seen you before tonight.

Well in anarchy those who are unemployed would most surely be homeless! And more people would probably be unemployed.

What makes you think that?

Who's going to employ you when the system breaks down, huh?
You think you can keep up your free market?
Go read my earlier post, regarding libertarians, on page two.
While you do, i'm going to join the raiding parties.

Pietas, Fidelis, Gloria.

First off, no one said anything about a system breaking down. Second off, you need not maintain the free market, although that is one system which could potentially work in an anarchist community. There are always going to be people who are unemployed. All creation comes from destruction, that's just the way things go, conservation of order. Non-capitalist communities could also work for Anarchy, if we assume that Anarchy means modified Anarchy so that it's reasonably possible. Some would argue that this necessity of qualification lessens the meaning of the word and the idea, but I find that if we only restrict an idea to make it possible there is no need to change the name. So if we're talking about limiting the idea of Anarchy such that it is actually possible then it is basically a pacifistic society otherwise identical to any other. The only difference between Capitalism in the U.S. today, for example, and Anarcho-Capitalism would be the use of force for the maintainance of social order. Of course this requires that all members of the society be willing to participate in the system and that the community be isolated from outsiders who would not be willing to cooperate, but placing a system in a vacuum to make it more reasonable is a tried and true method for social engineering.

i'm not sure if i want to tell you to get a clue, or just let you keep believing this, so i can steal your stuff as soon as nobody's around to keep your doors locked.

To quote J.V. "Your hearts in the right place, but your brain is somewhere dark and covered with spiders."

Pietas, Fidelis, Gloria.

You've obviously never lived in East Africa.

Are you claiming that East Africa is undergoing anarchism?

One statist force being a government does not equal anarchism.

More than one statist force fighting to be government does not equal anarchism.

Anarchism equals the lack of statist forces being governments.

Who's going to employ you when the system breaks down, huh?

when what system breaks down?

anyways, people will work in one of the various democratic worker-run collectives. though i'm not sure 'employ' is the right word for it.

i'm not sure if i want to tell you to get a clue, or just let you keep believing this, so i can steal your stuff as soon as nobody's around to keep your doors locked.

To quote J.V. "Your hearts in the right place, but your brain is somewhere dark and covered with spiders."

Pietas, Fidelis, Gloria.

I never said it was reasonable, nor that it would ever happen, but everything I said is theoretically true. It's all academic since no one's really willing or able to demonstrate it, but it's all good.

To quote J.V. "Your hearts in the right place, but your brain is somewhere dark and covered with spiders."

How many hearts do I have again and what verb are they doing?

To quote J.V. "Your hearts in the right place, but your brain is somewhere dark and covered with spiders."

How many hearts do I have again and what verb are they doing?

[annoyed sarcasm]Wow, that's really smart of you, attacking his typing. You must be a genius.[/annoyed sarcasm]

You've obviously never lived in East Africa.

Are you claiming that East Africa is undergoing anarchism?

One statist force being a government does not equal anarchism.

More than one statist force fighting to be government does not equal anarchism.

Anarchism equals the lack of statist forces being governments.

Absolutely. There is no governments even close to a anarchic ideal. Anarchy has never happened and is not even close to happening.

Absolutely. There is no governments even close to a anarchic ideal.

No governments close to anarchy?

...

Err... Wouldn't a government maintaining an anarchic ideal be rather oxymoronic?

Absolutely. There is no governments even close to a anarchic ideal.

No governments close to anarchy?

...

Err... Wouldn't a government maintaining an anarchic ideal be rather oxymoronic?

Ah. Point. How about an autonomous geographical region them?

*grins* Better!

Oh! now I wish I could remember where I read this, but I recall reading about how, during the Spanish War, several cities and towns declared their independance and embarked upon all sorts of wacky and exciting social experiments, including anarchism and communism. They worked rather well for the week it took for the army to come through and conquer them.

Damn my rampant lack of sources!

The stupidest idea ever?

At home, Lisa sits at the kitchen table, dejected. Grampa sits with
her, also dejected.

Lisa: It's awful being a kid. No one listens to you.
Abe: It's rotten being old. No one listens to you.
Homer: I'm a white male, age 18 to 49. Everyone listens to me -- no
matter how dumb my suggestions are.
Pulls out a "nuts and gum" mixture, starts chomping
-- Together at last, "Lisa vs. Malibu Stacy"

Everyone gets a hug!
*is naked, hot and sweaty*

Line up! line up! no pushing! there's enough for everyone!

If you can catch me!

*streaks out*

Oh! now I wish I could remember where I read this, but I recall reading about how, during the Spanish War, several cities and towns declared their independance and embarked upon all sorts of wacky and exciting social experiments, including anarchism and communism. They worked rather well for the week it took for the army to come through and conquer them.


Saying that they only lasted a week is either being disingenuous or just exagerating: the anarchist regions of Andalucia lasted over a year, and were noted to be one of the most productive of all the Republican areas. You also gloss over things somewhat when you claim "the week it took for the army to come through and conquer them" - the anarchists had an army in the SCW, and it was if anything the frictions between the anarchist and the statist Marxist elements which lead to its eventual defeat: they were not just lying back letting the fascist forces take over, as you seem to indicate.

[annoyed sarcasm]Wow, that's really smart of you, attacking his typing. You must be a genius.[/annoyed sarcasm]

No, not attacking his typing, just strangely amused by the resultant message.

Err... Wouldn't a government maintaining an anarchic ideal be rather oxymoronic?

Ah. Point. How about an autonomous geographical region them?

Chiapas?

Anything taken to extremes is stupid.

Isn't that itself an extremist statement? It smacks of "Every rule has an exception."

It's more of an absolute, but I see what you mean...

Lots of things taken to extremes are stupid.

You also gloss over things somewhat when you claim "the week it took for the army to come through and conquer them" - the anarchists had an army in the SCW, and it was if anything the frictions between the anarchist and the statist Marxist elements which lead to its eventual defeat: they were not just lying back letting the fascist forces take over, as you seem to indicate.

yeah. in fact the anarchists (and basically only the anarchists) were what stopped the fascists from just taking over the whole of spain in july of 1936.

I have no doubt that there are plenty of ideas stupider than anarchism.

Err... Wouldn't a government maintaining an anarchic ideal be rather oxymoronic?

Ah. Point. How about an autonomous geographical region them?

Chiapas?

Not even close. They have a tourism website.

http://www.travelchiapas.com/

Well! I certainly do stand corrected. The site I was reading did sound like it lasted for quite a short time; though it was quite a long time since I read it. I shall certainly have to brush up some. Thank you!

Ah. Point. How about an autonomous geographical region them?

Chiapas?

Not even close. They have a tourism website.

http://www.travelchiapas.com/

parts of chiapas are semi-autonomous - basically wherever the mexican army isn't. you have perhaps heard of the zapatistas?

Like anyone else who has lived in East Africa will attest, anarchy sucks.
Oh, bitch bitch bitch, they won't let you skateboard wherever you want to. i didn't see you pushing the firefighters away from your house when it got firebombed by someone who wanted your DVD player. Your garage band doesn't need society, huh?

Pietas, Fidelis, Gloria.

The same argument applies to Libertarians. The day i see a Libertarian offer to pay the firefighters competitive rates, i'll eat this statement. Until then, it stands.

PFG.
http://www.ruralmetro.com/

Would you like Ketchup with that? :lol:

Like anyone else who has lived in East Africa will attest, anarchy sucks.
Oh, bitch bitch bitch, they won't let you skateboard wherever you want to. i didn't see you pushing the firefighters away from your house when it got firebombed by someone who wanted your DVD player. Your garage band doesn't need society, huh?

Pietas, Fidelis, Gloria.
Like anyone who lives in Africa will attest, democracy/communism/apartheid/islamiofascism all suck. These are not anarchist societies, they are in civil war. The problem is too many govts.

Don't judge all anarchists by a few commies who like to firebomb McDonalds. There are as many different types of anarchism as different kinds of democracies. The libertarians/anarcho-capitalists have strong theory and historical examples to back up their claims and to show how it works.

Like anyone else who has lived in East Africa will attest, anarchy sucks.
Oh, bitch bitch bitch, they won't let you skateboard wherever you want to. i didn't see you pushing the firefighters away from your house when it got firebombed by someone who wanted your DVD player. Your garage band doesn't need society, huh?

Pietas, Fidelis, Gloria.

The same argument applies to Libertarians. The day i see a Libertarian offer to pay the firefighters competitive rates, i'll eat this statement. Until then, it stands.

PFG.
http://www.ruralmetro.com/

Would you like Ketchup with that? :lol:

Question is, would they actually bother to try to save your house if they were neither required to do so by law and if it wasn't economically viable.

Chiapas?

Not even close. They have a tourism website.

http://www.travelchiapas.com/

http://www.travelchiapas.com/about/about-22.php is just a bit of fluff to make holidays there seem radical, then?

Like anyone else who has lived in East Africa will attest, anarchy sucks.
Oh, bitch bitch bitch, they won't let you skateboard wherever you want to. i didn't see you pushing the firefighters away from your house when it got firebombed by someone who wanted your DVD player. Your garage band doesn't need society, huh?

Pietas, Fidelis, Gloria.

The same argument applies to Libertarians. The day i see a Libertarian offer to pay the firefighters competitive rates, i'll eat this statement. Until then, it stands.

PFG.
http://www.ruralmetro.com/

Would you like Ketchup with that? :lol:

Question is, would they actually bother to try to save your house if they were neither required to do so by law and if it wasn't economically viable.

Of course they'd be required to by law. If you have a contract with them to save your house then they'd be required to uphold that contract or pay you full damages. It's the anarcho-commies who don't believe in law enforcement, not the libertarians. Libertarianism is not the naive starry eyed utopianism other anarchists subscribe to.

http://www.travelchiapas.com/about/about-22.php is just a bit of fluff to make holidays there seem radical, then?

don't you know that the indigenous villages of chiapas are filled entirely with singing and dancing animatronic characters? its a good show. i think it was called "the zapatista jug band jamboree" or something.