NationStates Jolt Archive

I figured, what better way to get multiple viewpoints on anarchy than on a foruf for a political game. So i'm just interested in hearing what you think anarchy is and how it can happen. I will check in daily to post my own feelings and adventures and to answer questions.

IMO, while I'm an antianarchist (some1 who doesn't believe in Anarchy but wishes to keep govt authority to a minimum), I believe that Anarchy would result naturally from the good-heartedness of humanity. However we are not good-hearted enough for this to happen

Here be dragons. And many who will say Anarchy is unworkable because of 'Human Nature,' and arguements by AnCaps and AnComms

Here be dragons. And many who will say Anarchy is unworkable because of 'Human Nature,' and arguements by AnCaps and AnComms
Gotta love the NS General forums :D

IMO, while I'm an antianarchist (some1 who doesn't believe in Anarchy but wishes to keep govt authority to a minimum), I believe that Anarchy would result naturally from the good-heartedness of humanity. However we are not good-hearted enough for this to happen

Sound like Russell's (iirc) belief that 'Anarchy is too good for us.'

IMO, while I'm an antianarchist (some1 who doesn't believe in Anarchy but wishes to keep govt authority to a minimum), I believe that Anarchy would result naturally from the good-heartedness of humanity. However we are not good-hearted enough for this to happen

i agree with it resulting naturally, but i don't agree that we are not good-hearted enough, i think there are individuals who would abuse the oportunities that anarchy would bring to take power, but not everyone is crule hearted.

If you do it the first time it might work at most 5 years then the biggest meanest guy on the block comes down on your town and then sets his rule. It's the same reason communism can never work.

If you do it the first time it might work at most 5 years then the biggest meanest guy on the block comes down on your town and then sets his rule. It's the same reason communism can never work.

They can't take control of the town single-handedly.

They can't take control of the town single-handedly.

I don't mean single-handedly when I said biggest meanest guy I was just saying like group attacking your group.

They can't take control of the town single-handedly.

exactly, most likly an anarchy would be pretty utopian, everyone would have what they need to survive and would be willing to fight to maintain it.

I and you will always find those of similar thought, and then elect/let someone to speak for them. We are a social animal, and there is absolutely NOTHING that we can change about that. There will always be dominance (we are a predatory/hierarchial SPECIES after all).

Should I not make decisions, based on the fact that I am wiser?

Perhaps, we shall use Piety?

Ability to fight?

You always will have to chose.

Jim


P.S. The only anarchists are the young, and dis-affected. The rest of *us* are the one that use to learn to use the "system" for their own ends. :)

Jim

Even if a state of anarchy could occur, it would be throught the mutual agreement of all people, agreeing not to abuse the lack of any defensive capability. Any anarchy is short lived, because you have families, then clans, tribes, nations, etc. Unless there is another factor involved that continually culled the population of intelligent, charismatic leader-types, anarchy is not, nor ever will be, possible.

Good day.

I and you will always find those of similar thought, and then elect/let someone to speak for them. We are a social animal, and there is absolutely NOTHING that we can change about that. There will always be dominance (we are a predatory/hierarchial SPECIES after all).

Should I not make decisions, based on the fact that I am wiser?

Perhaps, we shall use Piety?

Ability to fight?

You always will have to chose.

Jim


P.S. The only anarchists are the young, and dis-affected. The rest of *us* are the one that use to learn to use the "system" for their own ends. :)

Jim

jim jim jim, not all anarchist are young, and it isnt only about politics, have any of you heard og the Reclaim The Streets movement? It is designed to rid the world of cars and globial corporations, in otherwords eco and corporate anarchy. many of the memvbers are in their 20's to 40's with some in their late 60's and 70's. So as you can see, it is not a young mans thing.

I don't mean single-handedly when I said biggest meanest guy I was just saying like group attacking your group.

How is that any different than what we have now? Someone ruling through force. Keep in mind that anarchists can defend themselves.

Unless there is another factor involved that continually culled the population of intelligent, charismatic leader-types, anarchy is not, nor ever will be, possible.

Simple, just refuse to submit to their authority.

P.S. The only anarchists are the young, and dis-affected. The rest of *us* are the one that use to learn to use the "system" for their own ends.

BS. Kropotkin was not young and disaffected.

exactly, most likly an anarchy would be pretty utopian, everyone would have what they need to survive and would be willing to fight to maintain it.

If we were inherently anti-social, we could never have even created society.

Even if a state of anarchy could occur, it would be throught the mutual agreement of all people, agreeing not to abuse the lack of any defensive capability. Any anarchy is short lived, because you have families, then clans, tribes, nations, etc. Unless there is another factor involved that continually culled the population of intelligent, charismatic leader-types, anarchy is not, nor ever will be, possible.

Good day.
I wonder why Chomsky never thought of that, maybe you should write to him.

anarchy is by far the easiest system to be taken over by a dictator.

How so?

How so?

By the democratic system.

Anarchy's heart.

Jim

the idea of anarchy is a collection of equals, thus is someone tryed to disrupt the equality, i feel that they would collectivly push back.

How does that relate to being taken over by a dictatorship?

Ok, you have no government. Someone gets popular. As time progresses, he convinces the community to give him more power. Then to form a "security force." BANG! Dictatorship. Elections outlawed. And soldiers to enforce it.

Thats a very simple example. I'm sure someone could give a more detailed scenario.

Ok, you have no government. Someone gets popular. As time progresses, he convinces the community to give him more power. Then to form a "security force." BANG! Dictatorship. Elections outlawed. And soldiers to enforce it.

Thats a very simple example. I'm sure someone could give a more detailed scenario.

right, but you are forgetting, anarchy was achiedev once befor from a mighty government, now your dealing with a newly forming one, i don't think it would be too hard to destroy this one to.

Thats why god created PROPAGANDA

And it's done GRADUALLY and he/she doesn't call it government.

the idea of anarchy is a collection of equals, thus is someone tryed to disrupt the equality, i feel that they would collectivly push back.

Sounds like *shudders* communism to me.
:)

The first mistake is in assumining that we are all equal. We are not. We can be either equal, or diffferent, not both.

Jim.

Ok, you have no government. Someone gets popular. As time progresses, he convinces the community to give him more power. Then to form a "security force." BANG! Dictatorship. Elections outlawed. And soldiers to enforce it.

If they would give him power, they aren't really anarchists and would have never gotten rid of government in the first place.

Thats why god created PROPAGANDA

And it's done GRADUALLY and he/she doesn't call it government.

They would still oppose being ordered around. Anarchists oppose all hierarchy and wouldn't tolerate it no matter what you call it.

How can you give something you don't have?

Sounds like *shudders* communism to me.


The first mistake is in assumining that we are all equal. We are not. We can be either equal, or diffferent, not both.

Genuine communism is a form of anarchism.

Let me guess, you are one of the superior ones.

I know it's hard for élitists like you to understand, but other people do like having freedom. You have no right to deny them freedom because you are smarter or stronger or whatever.

I believe that Anarchy would result naturally from the good-heartedness of humanity. However we are not good-hearted enough for this to happen

I believe we are not YET "good-hearted" (ie morally-evolved) for anarchy to be workable. But I have faith that *eventually* humanity will evolve to a high enough level that one day we won't need laws or religion to coerce us into behaving properly. That time is still a few centuries away however, so in the meantime we still need laws and governments to keep us safe from greedy & violent people.

Lets see, Letila... the US was founded on freedom of speech, etc. Now look at it. We have people saying freedom must be sacrificed for security. Why in the blue fuck don't you think that anarchists would take their freedoms for granted either? People only rant about freedom when it's threatened. But using propaganda, you can make it seem as if freedoms aren't being threatened. Charisma, charm, appearance -- these are all factors in gaining popular support. You are shortsighted. PEOPLE ARE NAIVE.

Hitler was elected democratically. Saddam was elected. DIRECT DEMOCRACY is the worst form of government.

jim jim jim, not all anarchist are young, and it isnt only about politics, have any of you heard og the Reclaim The Streets movement? It is designed to rid the world of cars and globial corporations, in otherwords eco and corporate anarchy. many of the memvbers are in their 20's to 40's with some in their late 60's and 70's. So as you can see, it is not a young mans thing.


a 70 year old anarchist would be among the first shot. Seriously, do you really think that in an anarcy that organized crime will stop? people will just be like "well, we have to look out for ourselves now, so Im not gonna do nothing for no one" whatabout tribes, the mafia, or any group that is linked by mutual benefit. anarchy is just a transitional government from democracy (or whatever came first) into a dictatorship. Some guy will always become the alpha male, through brute force or cash.

How can you give something you don't have?

You create it.

Genuine communism is a form of anarchism.

Let me guess, you are one of the superior ones.

I know it's hard for élitists like you to understand, but other people do like having freedom. You have no right to deny them freedom because you are smarter or stronger or whatever.

We may need to take this to another thread but you did make a point:

Why deny someone freedom?

Jim

From 0 to Letila arguing definitions in 22 posts.

Back to the topic: How to make it happen.

To my mind, Anarchy (absense of rulers) could never form under a Government of any kind - ultimately they would be branded criminals and terrorists. So that means Anarchy would have to arise from chaos (absense of rules). So basically you're lefting waiting for the oil crash, nuclear war or whatever to create an environment where the hierarchy has been removed.

Even then people would naturally re-create the "old system" - if only through a lack of imagination - but on a smaller scale (villages, tribes): At this scale, where you can physically hit the person in charge, the ruler(s) would be much more responsive to the opinions of the majority.

I belive Letila posted some definitions for this kind of thing recently, perhaps that would be usefull here?

Some guy will always become the alpha male, through brute force or cash.

EXACTLY!! Look at the animal kingdom -- gorillas, baboons among others. OUr closest biological neighbors.

Lets see, Letila... the US was founded on freedom of speech, etc. Now look at it. We have people saying freedom must be sacrificed for security. Why in the blue fuck don't you think that anarchists would take their freedoms for granted either? People only rant about freedom when it's threatened. But using propaganda, you can make it seem as if freedoms aren't being threatened. Charisma, charm, appearance -- these are all factors in gaining popular support. You are shortsighted. PEOPLE ARE NAIVE.

Hitler was elected democratically. Saddam was elected. DIRECT DEMOCRACY is the worst form of government.

And when have I advocated direct democracy?

I figured, what better way to get multiple viewpoints on anarchy than on a foruf for a political game. So i'm just interested in hearing what you think anarchy is and how it can happen. I will check in daily to post my own feelings and adventures and to answer questions.
Hmmmm, are you asking my opinion how to overthrow the gov'mint? A little radical, you are young Jedi!

EXACTLY!! Look at the animal kingdom -- gorillas, baboons among others. OUr closest biological neighbors.
But we are no Gorillas, baboons or anything else like that.

And when have I advocated direct democracy?

Anarchy uses direct democracy... the people decide...

a 70 year old anarchist would be among the first shot. Seriously, do you really think that in an anarcy that organized crime will stop? people will just be like "well, we have to look out for ourselves now, so Im not gonna do nothing for no one" whatabout tribes, the mafia, or any group that is linked by mutual benefit. anarchy is just a transitional government from democracy (or whatever came first) into a dictatorship. Some guy will always become the alpha male, through brute force or cash.
You haven't read much about Anarchy have you?

But we are no Gorillas, baboons or anything else like that.

But we are biologically related to them. The way we look, the way our brain works, etc. If they develop hiearchy, don't you think a people without a government would eventually develop it as well? Maybe involuntarily or unknowingly, but it's inevitable.

While it could be possible in the future there is no way that an anarchist revolution is feasible under present conditions. And until the anarchist movement recognises it they're just indulging in pointless utopian fantasies instead of fighting for the here and now.

Anarchy uses direct democracy... the people decide...
Really?

How so. For direct democracy to work the decisions must be implement by force. Direct democracy is still coercion.

For example, if a vote is put to a community about a bridge being built. To build the bridge everyone would have to donate to a fund of some sort. Now if the vote goes says the bridge is to be built, all those who voted against the proposal will have to be forced to pay up against their will.

Anarchy encourages dictatorship. An anarchistic community is an easy target for foreign invaders. And if the anarchists form a defense force to combat the invaders, isn't that going against anarchy's anti-hiearchy stance?

Lets see, Letila... the US was founded on freedom of speech, etc. Now look at it. We have people saying freedom must be sacrificed for security. Why in the blue fuck don't you think that anarchists would take their freedoms for granted either? People only rant about freedom when it's threatened. But using propaganda, you can make it seem as if freedoms aren't being threatened. Charisma, charm, appearance -- these are all factors in gaining popular support. You are shortsighted. PEOPLE ARE NAIVE.

The US wasn't founded on freedom. Women couldn't vote. Black people were slaves, does that sound free?

EXACTLY!! Look at the animal kingdom -- gorillas, baboons among others. OUr closest biological neighbors.

Last time I checked, I was a human.

a 70 year old anarchist would be among the first shot. Seriously, do you really think that in an anarcy that organized crime will stop? people will just be like "well, we have to look out for ourselves now, so Im not gonna do nothing for no one" whatabout tribes, the mafia, or any group that is linked by mutual benefit. anarchy is just a transitional government from democracy (or whatever came first) into a dictatorship. Some guy will always become the alpha male, through brute force or cash.

Complete BS. A government is just a socially accepted mafia.

But we are biologically related to them. The way we look, the way our brain works, etc. If they develop hiearchy,

Does the fact that we are cleverer then them not alter anything to you. You may as well argue that we enjoy chasing balls because dogs do.

don't you think a people without a government would eventually develop it as well?

If a society works completely fine without a government, why should it need to develope one?

Maybe involuntarily or unknowingly, but it's inevitable.
How does one involuntarily creat a government?

Really?

How so. For direct democracy to work the decisions must be implement by force. Direct democracy is still coercion.

For example, if a vote is put to a community about a bridge being built. To build the bridge everyone would have to donate to a fund of some sort. Now if the vote goes says the bridge is to be built, all those who voted against the proposal will have to be forced to pay up against their will.

Those who voted against it would not pay because no one will enforce them to... and I'm pretty sure that Letila has advocated a society with no form of currency...

How else is something accomplished in anarchistic society?

Here is a good hypothetical:

Say there is a catastrophe on a grand scale. Epidemics, asteroids, famines, say. How does a true anarchy survive? There is no reason to pursue the science required to avert those tragedies, because they are not useful to survival. A world without union WILL fall to anything new and vigorous and motivated. Resistance is nothing unless it is organized. Without organization, all crumbles. The only true anarchists would be a self-sustaining family on the savannas, feral hunters in a feral world.

Anarchy encourages dictatorship. An anarchistic community is an easy target for foreign invaders. And if the anarchists form a defense force to combat the invaders, isn't that going against anarchy's anti-hiearchy stance?
No. You'll find people spontaneously organising themselves to defend their community: If someone threatens your family do you wait to be told to defend them?

Anarchy encourages dictatorship. An anarchistic community is an easy target for foreign invaders. And if the anarchists form a defense force to combat the invaders, isn't that going against anarchy's anti-hiearchy stance?
Fine, it is an easy target for foreign aggression. Which is why it will have to work on a large scale.

Maybe you have heard of the Spanish Civil War? Anarchist manged to effectively form themselves into militias.

What does the militia do afterwards? They have a vested interest in that which they defended, and will not disband.

Those who voted against it would not pay because no one will enforce them to... and I'm pretty sure that Letila has advocated a society with no form of currency...

Then what is the point of voting if those that effectively lose don't have to comply?

How else is something accomplished in anarchistic society?
Define 'something,' otherwise I could make mean what ever I want from the trivial (like making a paper airplane) to the complex, organising trade with other communities.

The US wasn't founded on freedom. Women couldn't vote. Black people were slaves, does that sound free?

Read the bill of rights. Sounds pretty fucking free to me. Slavery, women without voting rights was unconstitutional. AGAINST THE LAW.

Does the fact that we are cleverer then them not alter anything to you. You may as well argue that we enjoy chasing balls because dogs do.

Yeah, humans are SO clever. Thats why we created the nuclear bomb, which resulted in over 50 years of Cold War. Thats why we start wars that accomplish nothing.

Last time I checked, I was a human.

Do you deny the fact that humans and animals behave similiar ways in cases?

Complete BS. A government is just a socially accepted mafia.

Really? Thats why the government creates laws to stop crime.

Here is a good hypothetical:

Say there is a catastrophe on a grand scale. Epidemics, asteroids, famines, say. How does a true anarchy survive? There is no reason to pursue the science required to avert those tragedies, because they are not useful to survival. A world without union WILL fall to anything new and vigorous and motivated. Resistance is nothing unless it is organized. Without organization, all crumbles. The only true anarchists would be a self-sustaining family on the savannas, feral hunters in a feral world.
What makes you think that Anarchists don't like organisation?

I wouldn't talk about 'true anarchists' if I were you, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

What does the militia do afterwards? They have a vested interest in that which they defended, and will not disband.
Militia: Civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army.

A militia would form for a specific purpose ie: defense against an outside attacker, their vested interest is their community which they (hopefully) just defended successfully.

There will not be any business in a power vacuum. It is dangerous, and there is no accountability, no laws to protect them. Business and government are inextricably intertwined.

No. You'll find people spontaneously organising themselves to defend their community: If someone threatens your family do you wait to be told to defend them?

And then you put the best fighter in command... and guess what happens afterwards? Governments were created so as the community could have someone to organize projects. Later, governments were used to defend the community from outside agressors.

Read the bill of rights. Sounds pretty fucking free to me. Slavery, women without voting rights was unconstitutional. AGAINST THE LAW.

Funny how no one in the gummint had a problem with those things for a hundred years.

Do you deny the fact that humans and animals behave similiar ways in cases?

Most animals have some kind of sexual hierarchy. We have gotten rid of most of ours. Many animals eat foods we don't eat.

Really? Thats why the government creates laws to stop crime.

It also starts wars, keeps us from smoking pot and watching Gundam SEED uncensored, and enforces property laws that allow the rich to get by without doing anything.

Yeah, humans are SO clever. Thats why we created the nuclear bomb, which resulted in over 50 years of Cold War. Thats why we start wars that accomplish nothing.

Actually I remember reading an artical by Dr. Gorilla about how apes have created a nuclear reactor.

Do you deny the fact that humans and animals behave similiar ways in cases?

No. But just because we behave similarly in some cases doesn't mean that we will always react the same. For example if a human is in distress it will probably cry out for help. Similar to dog. That does not mean we both like our bollocks.

Really? Thats why the government creates laws to stop crime.

Really? When the anti-drug laws were first passed they criminalised many thousands of people over night. You could say that the crime rate sky rocketed.

And then you put the best fighter in command... and guess what happens afterwards?
They all go home, they're under no obligation to go follow any order once they do what they set out to do - defend their homes in this case. Once I finish playing paintball with some other strangers I'm not going to take orders from whoever was appointed leader.

And guess what Letila? If we solved those problems with government before, what makes you think that we won't solve our problems again? :rolleyes:

And I'll rephrase what I said about laws. We create laws with the INTENTION of stopping crime.

And then you put the best fighter in command... and guess what happens afterwards?

I don't know. He goes back to his farm afterwards?

Governments were created so as the community could have someone to organize projects.

I am actually genuinly interested in why governments formed originally. Do you have any sources?

Later, governments were used to defend the community from outside agressors.
But if there are no outside aggressors?

Anyway, I alway thought soldier/warriors defended the community from agressors.

They all go home, they're under no obligation to go follow any order once they do what they set out to do - defend their homes in this case. Once I finish playing paintball with some other strangers I'm not going to take orders from whoever was appointed leader.

Are you comparing paintball to live war? :eek:

People develop something called loyalty.

And guess what Letila? If we solved those problems with government before, what makes you think that we won't solve our problems again? :rolleyes:

And I'll rephrase what I said about laws. We create laws with the INTENTION of stopping crime.
Really?

Please explain to me how drug laws stop crime?

I am actually genuinly interested in why governments formed originally. Do you have any sources?

My history book from school. It had to do with ancient peoples of Sumer and Mesopotamia.

People develop something called loyalty.
Fine, I have loyalty to my freinds and family. But if they started to govern me I'd give them the finger :upyours:

I am actually genuinly interested in why governments formed originally. Do you have any sources?

Government is the result of property. When a person finds a way to use force to keep others off their property, a government is born. It basically started as a way to protect wealth and slavery.

Please explain to me how drug laws stop crime?

did I say that they stop crime? read what I wrote in my rephrase -- INTENTION. the decision lacked foresight.

My history book from school. It had to do with ancient peoples of Sumer and Mesopotamia.
Shame.

Fine, I have loyalty to my freinds and family. But if they started to govern me I'd give them the finger :upyours:

Thats you, but look at all the loons in America who say "you're either with us or against" -- the result of PROPAGANDA.

did I say that they stop crime? read what I wrote in my rephrase -- INTENTION. the decision lacked foresight.
So why was it not reversed?

I could also point out anti sodomy laws and other victimless crimes.

Which are there to try and control use rather then prevent crime.

Thats you, but look at all the loons in America who say "you're either with us or against" -- the result of PROPAGANDA.

As it turns out, we can show people the falsehood of this propaganda.

Are you comparing paintball to live war? :eek:

People develop something called loyalty.
It's the closest example I can call upon, meaning a group of people without formal training working together in the defense of an objective. And watch someone's who never played before dive for cover - in that first round they'll be treating the balls much like bullets: Things that'll hurt.

And if you insist on citing loyalty: We're talking about a group of anarchists who got together after The Collapse (or what have you) and formed a community. They're going to be more loyal to their families and their community than whoever became the leader.

So why was it not reversed?

Don't ask me.

Government is the result of property. When a person finds a way to use force to keep others off their property, a government is born. It basically started as a way to protect wealth and slavery.

Government is the result of early civlisations trying to organize themselves. Once the people in power realized they could wield their power to accumulate wealth, wealth was accumulated, and with that wealth property was born.

Yes! There are always leaders, and thus always governments. They might start small, but they grow. And grow and grow and grow. Until it falls, and another grows in its place. Anarchy is to erase leadership, and will always be a dream, because there are always leaders.

It's the closest example I can call upon, meaning a group of people without formal training working together in the defense of an objective. And watch someone's who never played before dive for cover - in that first round they'll be treating the balls much like bullets: Things that'll hurt.

And if you insist on citing loyalty: We're talking about a group of anarchists who got together after The Collapse (or what have you) and formed a community. They're going to be more loyal to their families and their community than whoever became the leader.

You lack foresight. What about 100 years later (if they even last that long), when people take that freedom for granted?

So, because they take freedom for granted, they will gladly give it up?

They're less aware of their surroundings... propaganda propaganda propaganda

How many times do I have to say it?

I don't get it. What do you mean, less aware of their of their surroundings? It could be you are using a term that I don't get, or tiredness has finally hit me.

Also, you still haven't explain why people would give up there freedoms to form a government for no reason. And repeating propaganda will not work.

Yes! There are always leaders, and thus always governments. They might start small, but they grow. And grow and grow and grow. Until it falls, and another grows in its place. Anarchy is to erase leadership, and will always be a dream, because there are always leaders.

Let's imagine we are back in feudal times:

Yes! There are always kings, and thus always governments. They might start small, but they grow. And grow and grow and grow. Until it falls, and another grows in its place. Democracy is to erase kings, and will always be a dream, because there are always kings.

Hint: Provide evidence.

Its all from my good friend John Locke. Social Contract Theory, anyone?

You lack foresight. What about 100 years later (if they even last that long), when people take that freedom for granted?
Hell if I know, I think Anarchy is destined to evolve in to something else: As numbers increase Anarchy becomes unworkable - 100 people could never reach a concensus - and some form of representative democracy would arise.

Its all from my good friend John Locke. Social Contract Theory, anyone?
Rejected.

And I'm sure that many others will.

PS, where did you sign?

Let's imagine we are back in feudal times:

Yes! There are always kings, and thus always governments. They might start small, but they grow. And grow and grow and grow. Until it falls, and another grows in its place. Democracy is to erase kings, and will always be a dream, because there are always kings.

Hint: Provide evidence.
Ahhh T.I.N.A.


Don't you just love it Letila?

Ahhh T.I.N.A.


Don't you just love it Letila?

What is t.i.n.a.?

[QUOTE=Renard]From 0 to Letila arguing definitions in 22 posts.

To my mind, Anarchy (absense of rulers) could never form under a Government of any kind - ultimately they would be branded criminals and terrorists. So that means Anarchy would have to arise from chaos (absense of rules). So basically you're lefting waiting for the oil crash, nuclear war or whatever to create an environment where the hierarchy has been removed.[QUOTE]
look around, has anyone noticed the state the world is in? we are in dander of nuclear war w n. korea (usa not uk) and oil prices are skyrocketing. it wont be long.

What is t.i.n.a.?
There Is No Alternative.

lets try looking at this on a smaller scale, not all of the uk or us morl like alaska ot hawaii or some place secluded and small.

But there is an alternative. He just hasn't bothered to research it.

But there is an alternative. He just hasn't bothered to research it.
I realise that, you realise that.

But TINA is always invoked when a new system is proposed. When it was first suggested that a nation could run fine without a king it was (as you identified).

I don't get it. What do you mean, less aware of their of their surroundings? It could be you are using a term that I don't get, or tiredness has finally hit me.

Also, you still haven't explain why people would give up there freedoms to form a government for no reason. And repeating propaganda will not work.

Why are people willing to surrender their freedoms now?... think about that question.

There is no alternative, eh? You're the ones who seem to be advocating no other alternative other than anarchy... :rolleyes:

Why are people willing to surrender their freedoms now?... think about that question.

The government has power over them. They must follow the law.

There is no alternative, eh? You're the ones who seem to be advocating no other alternative other than anarchy...

The alternative you advocate is undesirable.

Undesirable to you, but is your opinion more important than mine? :rolleyes:

and you obviously have no clue what you're talking about... people don't surrender freedoms because it's against the law not to. they do so because they're fucking idiots. in the US we're supposed to have freedom of speech. people just don't exercise it enough. if they do, maybe we can fix what we've fucked up -- our government.

unlike you, I can criticize my alternative (government) because I know that there are two forms of government: good and bad.

it's either anarchy or "you're an elitist who hates anime and loves fascism" with you.

Why are people willing to surrender their freedoms now?... think about that question.

Because they are told by the government that it will make them safer, and many trust the government. Without an authoritative institution like the state, how could this be done in an Anarchism

There is no alternative, eh? You're the ones who seem to be advocating no other alternative other than anarchy... :rolleyes:
You are misreading what I said.

I am not saying that previous systems haven't worked. The system in 30's Germany worked, but for me, Anarchy is the most desiarable way.

Undesirable to you, but is your opinion more important than mine?

Well to Letila it does.

it's either anarchy or "you're an elitist who hates anime and loves fascism" with you.
Please do not judge us all by Letila.

I'd like to point out that anarchy is not a completly un-tried system. Isreal went for a couple hundred years without any government, and the history of the period is recorded in the book of Judges.
During that time the isreali people were fairly happy and prosperous, Living under a code of mosiac law which pretty much everyone accepted voluntairly (and shunning or exiling those who broke the big commandments) and occasionally hiring judges when conflicts which needed to be mediated arised.
That reasonably happy state of affairs ended because they lost a major war against one of their neighbors, and decided that perhaps their defeat could have been avoided had they had a king capable of thinking of unified grand strategies, so they appointed saul, who quickly proceeded to go mad and be suceeded by david who murdered one of his own soliders in order to steal his wife, to be suceeded by solomon the wise who was a biblical Bill Clinton.

We realise that Anarchism is not untried. But we tend to prefer the current working examples and the early twentieth century ones (Spain and the Ukraine)

Because they are told by the government that it will make them safer, and many trust the government. Without an authoritative institution like the state, how could this be done in an Anarchism

How did we create an authoritative institution before the government? It was done before and it can be done again

Anarchy simply would not work. However, should something like it ever happen in the United States (highly unlikely), I can honestly say I would kill those who support it; that is if I myself weren't attacked by a pack of bloodthirsty anarchists beforehand.

Anarchy simply would not work. However, should something like it ever happen in the United States (highly unlikely), I can honestly say I would kill those who support it; that is if I myself weren't attacked by a pack of bloodthirsty anarchists beforehand.

As though the government is some benevolent organization which never hurts anyone. :p I think I'll take my chances with a less organized oppressor and go with anarchism, assuming this will even be as big a problem as you think.

Fantastic.

Anarchy simply would not work. However, should something like it ever happen in the United States (highly unlikely), I can honestly say I would kill those who support it; that is if I myself weren't attacked by a pack of bloodthirsty anarchists beforehand.
Oh yes, every night I wank myself to sleep imagining the amount statists I will be able to kill in all sorts of imaginativly grusome ways without the needing to be worried about consequences of my actions.

Grow up. We are not zombies from 28 Days Later. We are human.

And so are people from the government.

Well, I didn't mean to make a whole issue of it. And now that, somewhere along the line, zombies have gotten involved in the discussion, let's just end it at that.

It'd be pretty fucking hard to run an anarchist state in the high tech connected world we live in now.

It'd be pretty fucking hard to run an anarchist state in the high tech connected world we live in now.
That largely depends on your definitions of what is required: Ultimately, I don't need the internet - I need food, water, shelter and a sense of security (which comes as much from being with people you trust as having a police force). Ultimately if there's a big enough demand for something it'll get done - everyone'll decide they want running water or whatever and get together and do it.

It'd be pretty fucking hard to run an anarchist state in the high tech connected world we live in now.
Care to justify that?