Page 3 of 4
#81
I don't see why society couldn't progress under an anarchic governance. But whatever. I see anarchy not as a society ungoverned, but as a society not bound by governance.


Sometimes I feel like an anarchist. But I usually end up concluding that i'm just a pacifist.
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
#82
Quote by due 07
"Go ahead, argue that science and mathematics would progress without a structured society."

I'm terribly sorry for misunderstanding you, Mr. Axe, but that statement sure implies that anarchism is structureless. ¯\_(ツ_/¯
This is what I get for not putting "well-structured society." Ugh, fine, I'll spend too much time defining my position so you can yet again disregard it all.

Explain to me how medicine will improve under anarchy. I would ask about how science and math in general would advance but I'm afraid too many of you will give an answer like this:
Quote by █▐▌█▐▌
Like, y do we need science and mathematics to progress neway? Like, they dnt change the fundamental absurdity of existence.
but actually mean it.

So brah, how will anarchy improve medicine, which is something all sane people agree is important. How would anarchy research new medication? Hell, how would it even provide medical coverage as we are used to now? This is my main issue. How can anarchy be so great if it only promises to provide some theoretical utopia without the normal problems of other forms of government if it doesn't promise to improve literally anything else but some bullshit about resources and labor division?
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
#83
In what sense would conducting research require a statist condition to work?
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ
#84
Ya, I'd imagine research would flourish w/ a system in which there isn't intellectual monopoly and centralization of information.
#85
I know I'm going to regret asking this, but you give an example?

My issue is that things like this: http://www.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/ don't happen on their own without the support of a large amount of capital and the cooperation of SEVERAL scientific institutions.
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
#86
It requires cooperation and pooling of resources between individuals and institutions, which isn't necessarily dependent on state intervention. I won't make a case on the efficiency of research in a free society as it will be flawed (who knows how Anarchism might work). However, going by the dispersion of research articles and information on the internet, I wouldn't rule it out just yet.
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ
#87
I asked for an example not wishy washy bullshit.
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
#88
Quote by axeslash
I asked for an example not wishy washy bullshit.


Your questions seem to be wishy-washy bullshit, though.

Why wouldn't science, mathematics, medicine and the ilk continue just the same? People can communicate, -if there is consensus, and if the resources are available they should be utilized.

Obviously building high-tech facilities require cooperation and they always will, just as a nuclear plant will always need people to maintain the reactor. Obviously resources require capital, but if the resources are available for the public, and consensus is granted, the resources will be utilized to BUILD that damn observatory.

On a side note, as much as I'm a fan of NASA and astronomy- observatories and the LHC are neat, but do they help the community?

Health care, food, water, electricity, education and housing for all people seem more important. Perhaps your wishy-washy space observations should come later.

You're right! These things wouldn't happen on their own until they were deemed necessary by consensus.
<//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\>
<//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\>
<//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\>
Last edited by lateraluspiral at May 22, 2012,
#89
Quote by lateraluspiral
Your questions seem to be wishy-washy bullshit, though.

Why wouldn't science, mathematics, medicine and the ilk continue just the same? People can communicate, -if there is consensus, and if the resources are available they should be utilized.

Obviously building high-tech facilities require cooperation and they always will, just as a nuclear plant will always need people to maintain the reactor. Obviously resources require capital, but if the resources are available for the public, and consensus is granted, the resources will be utilized to BUILD that damn observatory.

On a side note, as much as I'm a fan of NASA and astronomy- observatories and the LHC are neat, but do they help the community?

Health care, food, water, electricity, education and housing for all people seem more important. Perhaps your wishy-washy space observations should come later.

You're right! These things wouldn't happen on their own until they were deemed necessary by consensus.
First of all, I love the fact that your first retort was "NO U!" Very classy my man, very classy.

And now we come to the crux of every anarchistic argument: consensus and group action.

Ironically enough your post provides all the evidence I need against anarchism. You say that all of these important things can exist under an anarchistic society given group consensus that they are important enough to society. Now you have dismissed the LIGO installation as being unimportant, as many other people without a higher "appreciation" for science have done.

What benefits has the LIGO installation given us? Well, there is a near certainty that within the next year we will be able to prove or disprove the existence of gravity waves. Their proof will help us to expand upon our current scientific understandings and give us a whole new way to observe space. Disproof of gravity waves will be such a fundamental blow to our understanding of the universe that it will require massive reworking of how we look at special relativity. Either way, we win.

But since you are the kind of luddite who will cry "but what if they don't do anything useful" the installation itself has done pioneering research in scientific computing, materials research, and noise cancelling techniques. Laser technology has improved under the necessary research to create an effective infrared laser to use in the experiment. There are way more advances I could list but I'd have to give you a physics lesson for most of them. Trying to explain a "mode cleaner" to people without a basic knowledge of wave optics or photonic resonance is like pulling teeth.

People like you would not give their consensus to projects like this, which have given us tangible benefits to society. There are a examples of science experiments which didn't see an immediate use in society, but are so completely indispensable that no one would argue against the money spent to research them. Franklin rubbed glass and silk together, and most people nowadays would say "that is a silly thing to do, how did that help anybody?" His research and the research of others like him led to the electricity driven society we have today. We all want science to advance, but no one can ever say "spend $500,000,000,000, receive reliable fusion generation."

How about this. Look up the history of electricity. Look up the kinds of experiments and techniques people used in early experiments on electricity. In fact I'll make it simpler. Look up Hans Christian Ørsted. He discovered that the currents in a wire create a magnetic field. Is this useful? Some people would say "no," while others would say "that sure sounds neat." Educated people would say "the simple knowledge of the fact that magnetic fields and currents interact is so fundamental to electricity that we would not be able to do ANYTHING without it."

Uneducated people making decisions about science is literally the worst Hell I can imagine living in.

In conclusion: you are a luddite, your opinion is invalid, and how the hell is "giving consensus" to a project or idea different than democracy?
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
Last edited by axeslash at May 23, 2012,
#90
Quote by axeslash


*masturbation*

In conclusion: you are a luddite, your opinion is invalid, and how the hell is "giving consensus" to a project or idea different than democracy?


It is democratic--- thats the whole point, isn't it?
as for your seeming appreciation of democracy, i love that you point out that people can have "invalid" opinions, with no sense of irony. you must love democracy, god forbid people have opinions

obviously my first response wasn't "no u!" as you seem to misunderstand. im saying the example youre asking for is somewhat irrelevant to the point of the movement. the answer given by someone else before i joined this thread seemed sufficient, (something along the lines of "no one can predict the future") but you deemed it "bullshit"

you missed my argument completely, or actively ignored it, whichever.

Quote by axeslash

But since you are the kind of luddite who will cry "but what if they don't do anything useful"

i wasn't saying these experiments have no benefit (words you seemed to have shoved in my mouth - great argument skills btw), im saying they're worthless compared to the bigger problems humanity faces.
you don't HAVE to ignore what i'm saying, but if you do i'll assume you're trolling

If you need a concise answer from this "luddite", which you obviusly require, I guess I'd have to ask why couldn't they continue under anarchism? You seem to base the problems with this on the way society currently functions, which in your words I guess would be "uneducated". I'm willing to have a discussion with you, but don't ignore my responses and resort to name calling, and then call my response un-classy for using sarcasm.

In conclusion: these projects would most likely continue, due to democracy and consensus, secondary to more pressing matters. all opinions are valid, even your intentionally misguided ones
<//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\>
<//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\>
<//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\>
Last edited by lateraluspiral at May 23, 2012,
#91
damn this is some serious shit

you guys should relax and have a beer
#92
Quote by lateraluspiral
I'd have to ask why couldn't they continue under anarchism?

because he thinks "anarchism" and "well-structured society" are mutually exclusive.

axe your entire argument is just a bunch of moving goalposts and false premises.
#93
Quote by due 07
axe your entire argument is just a bunch of moving goalposts and false premises.

oh right you're still pretty new here
#94
Quote by due 07
because he thinks "anarchism" and "well-structured society" are mutually exclusive.
Yup. Guess that makes me one of those crazies who isn't an expert on a political philosophy I find trivial.

Educate me due 07. Show me the light.
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
#95
In the basest sense, government exists to protect you from me and vice versa. Because the 'state of nature' looks a lot more like Hobbes envisioned it than how Locke did.
#96
Quote by █▐▌█▐▌
oh right you're still pretty new here

Lul.
Quote by axeslash
Yup. Guess that makes me one of those crazies who isn't an expert on a political philosophy I find trivial.

Educate me due 07. Show me the light.

I already explained to you that the two aren't mutually exclusive and provided examples for you. I believe you replied and called my examples "magical."
#97
Quote by axeslash
It's just funny to see all these people talk about the merits of anarchy and when you ask them why they buy their stuff at Wal-Mart they explain that since it isn't an anarchistic society we live in and people are all huge jerks they have to play by societies rules.

All I am saying is that anarchists literally have the cutest cop outs. Nothing is cuter than the political opinions of anarchists.


An anarchist shopping at wal-mart won't stop him from being an anarchist. That's like saying a capitalist shouldn't give gifts, because there's no profit. Completely absurd and if you would have stopped and thought for a split second about the difference between philosophy and practice. Their "cute answer" could be considered the "correct answer"- their philosophy is difficult to practice in most societies...


Quote by axeslash
So how exactly is it that people think anarchy is awesome when it takes so little effort to wreck everything people worked on for over 40 years? Like how hard do you have to cognitive dissonance your brain into not seeing how blindingly useless a system as fragile as that is?


A "cute" ( hehe ) opinion about anarchism here. Most anarchist seek to abolish all illegitimate forms of authority, not simply authority. If another society enters into and seeks to destroy/take over an anarchist society, the anarchists using self-defense to protect their society wouldn't be an illegitimate use of authority, nor coercive, but merely a survival tactic.
It's the same logic that the United States employed when demanding a well-regulated militia (2nd amendment) to further protect themselves against the threat European Monarchs against their free society. I can't imagine many anarchists denying the use of self-defense(minus perhaps pacifists, i cant speak for all, clearly just my own opinions).
Simply because anarchist societies have been destroyed by force in the past doesn't imply that they are fragile societies, or even inherently weak for promoting cooperation and equality.

You sound like you're from another planet
<//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\>
<//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\>
<//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\>
#98
Quote by lateraluspiral
An anarchist shopping at wal-mart won't stop him from being an anarchist. That's like saying a capitalist shouldn't give gifts, because there's no profit. Completely absurd and if you would have stopped and thought for a split second about the difference between philosophy and practice. Their "cute answer" could be considered the "correct answer"- their philosophy is difficult to practice in most societies...
More of a sidenote than anything else, but your analogy is silly. Capitalists are people who use capital; an assertion that gift giving is uncapitalistic is juvenile at best. Again, more of a sidenote, but pointing out infantile analogies is something I just can't help but enjoy.
Quote by lateraluspiral
Simply because anarchist societies have been destroyed by force in the past doesn't imply that they are fragile societies, or even inherently weak for promoting cooperation and equality.

You sound like you're from another planet
My argument is that a fragile society is a bad society. If you live in a magical world of freedom and equality then good for you. If that society should collapse for any number of reasons like famine (through their own fault, not nature-caused), economic collapse, internal power struggles, or other types of problems then the society wasn't very good to begin with. If a society existed in perfect harmony but was conquered by another nation than that is too bad, but if they were conquered by a comically weak nation then their society wasn't effective. I add this so you people won't misconstrue me as supporting heavy militarism.

A society described by anarchism is nice. But a more effective society could be reached under socialism or a Republic, and I would argue that this would be better under almost all circumstances.
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
#99
Quote by axeslash
More of a sidenote than anything else, but your analogy is silly. Capitalists are people who use capital; an assertion that gift giving is uncapitalistic is juvenile at best.

That's his point! Your assertion that anarchists oughn't shop at walmart is "jevenile at best."

Anarchists are people who subscribe to an anarchist political philosophy of whatever persuasion -- whether or not they shop at walmart is irrelevant. Shopping at walmart isn't unbecoming behavior of an anarchist just as giving gifts isn't unbecoming behavior of capitalist rat dogs.
#100
Quote by due 07
oughn't

Oughtn't is a fun word. I don't get to use it nearly enough. It's so needlessly pretentious.
Quote by emoboy027
Is fingering an emo chick that likes yoy and that has fallen in love with you is it wrong to you to finger her during lunch outside in front of everyone at the high school? would you not care or lol even wish it was you?

Youztoobz
MIDI Magicalness!
#101
Quote by nashawa
Oughtn't is a fun word. I don't get to use it nearly enough. It's so needlessly pretentious.

ikr? I can hardly even wrap my tongue around it irl.
#102
Quote by due 07
That's his point! Your assertion that anarchists oughn't shop at walmart is "jevenile at best."

Anarchists are people who subscribe to an anarchist political philosophy of whatever persuasion -- whether or not they shop at walmart is irrelevant. Shopping at walmart isn't unbecoming behavior of an anarchist just as giving gifts isn't unbecoming behavior of capitalist rat dogs.
I dunno, Wal-Mart refuses to let its members unionize, which means its employees are subject to the whims of its managers, who are sociopathic at best.

They use child slave labor and underpaid slave labor, which is kind of the antithesis of 99% of political ideologies, but it has a particular resonance in the anarchist communities.

A communist could say the have to use money because they live in a capitalistic society, but no one has ever been forced to show at Wal-Mart, there is ALWAYS another option.

My assertion is that my statement was flawless and you all don't understand half the shit I say.

Oh and as a side note, capitalism rules.
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
#103
Quote by axeslash
I dunno, Wal-Mart refuses to let its members unionize, which means its employees are subject to the whims of its managers, who are sociopathic at best.

They use child slave labor and underpaid slave labor, which is kind of the antithesis of 99% of political ideologies, but it has a particular resonance in the anarchist communities.

A communist could say the have to use money because they live in a capitalistic society, but no one has ever been forced to show at Wal-Mart, there is ALWAYS another option.

It doesn't matter if they were forced to shop at walmart or not.

I know that walmart sux, no need to tell me. But you've failed to demonstrate how shopping at a place w/ poor labor practices in "unanarchist."

Anarchists aren't just opposed to poor working conditions and poor wages. They're also against illegitimate authority and the capitalist mode of production in general. So by your logic it's unanarchist to get arrested for growing weed, to work, to buy anything involving the exploitation of labor (which, according to most critiques of capitalism, is virtually everything), etc.
#104
Quote by axeslash
Quote by lateraluspiral
Simply because anarchist societies have been destroyed by force in the past doesn't imply that they are fragile societies...
My argument is that a fragile society is a bad society.


My response was that they are not necessarily inherently fragile societies.
And you responded with fragile = bad. and then you give examples of what happens to fragile(bad) societies.

Quote by axeslash
If a society existed in perfect harmony but was conquered by another nation than that is too bad, but if they were conquered by a comically weak nation then their society wasn't effective. I add this so you people won't misconstrue me as supporting heavy militarism.


This simply isn't true, and "I add this so you people won't misconstrue me as supporting heavy militarism" is a meaningless statement to tack on.

Even if a "comically" weaker nation conquered a different society, this implies that the conquering nation clearly wasn't weaker. But this doesn't imply that the conquering nation was had a more effective society, especially considering society doesn't equal military strength.

Also, what about the EZLN in Chiapas? The Mexican government failed to stop their revolution. By pure strength (and even wealth) they are comically weak compared to the Mexican military and government, and yet gained their autonomy.

But this, by your logic, implies that Mexican society isn't effective.
Hmmm..


I understand due 07's remark about moving goalposts now. WTF.
<//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\>
<//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\>
<//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\>
#105
Quote by lateraluspiral
My response was that they are not necessarily inherently fragile societies.
And you responded with fragile = bad. and then you give examples of what happens to fragile(bad) societies.
I'll admit I didn't communicate this in the best way, and I did sperg a bit out of control. Me so sorry.
Quote by lateraluspiral
This simply isn't true, and "I add this so you people won't misconstrue me as supporting heavy militarism" is a meaningless statement to tack on.
If you have had the arguments I have had on this website you would understand why I would add that. Yes, it is meaningless. But welcome to the internet, where everyone nitpicks everything that everyone else says, often times due to misunderstandings.
Quote by lateraluspiral
Also, what about the EZLN in Chiapas? The Mexican government failed to stop their revolution. By pure strength (and even wealth) they are comically weak compared to the Mexican military and government, and yet gained their autonomy.

But this, by your logic, implies that Mexican society isn't effective.
Hmmm.. .
I don't know much about the EZLN and my spanish-major liberal arts brother isn't here to tell me what I need to know so I'd have to do more research to at least give a semi-informed opinion. But more on this at a later time.

Here's my issue with this. I didn't say ANYTHING about whether a countries ability to invade another makes it weak or not. I was only talking about the society getting invaded. So I'll simplify. So there is NO confusion in my position and people can stop accusing me of moving goal posts. I mean you won't, but at least maybe your response will be less about how I'm just bad at thinking and my brain is stupid. Because my brain is awesome.

Say you live in a country. It is a good country to live in. Low crime, low corruption, good economy, proper social values. All the good stuff. For example let's say France. Don't nitpick the decision to use France, just run with it. While the European world isn't doing so hot they are doing better than others (like Greece.)

And then let's say it is invaded by Andorra. Which has a population of around 84,000. France has about 250,000 in active military positions. So if France were conquered by a nation with a population about a third the size of their active military then France really didn't deserve to exist. That's my point. If your society was ended with very little effort necessary on the invaders then your society wasn't going to hold up. The real world is pretty harsh. If you aren't willing to prepare for some bad times then you are just dooming yourself. That was my point, and it was my ONLY point in those statements. If your society has a super shitty military but lasted for 800 years and was ultimately ended by economic crises then you were a weak country but a lucky one.

If you invade another country you are a bunch of jerkfaces. Weak or strong, you're bad people and you shouldn't do that. Unfortunately this doesn't stop anyone. Welcome to the world.
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
#106
Anarchy would require that humans were majorly good and deserving of commendation. We're not. I'm opposed to pretty much every system of government we have in our world, but with our current population, some hierarchical setup would be absolutely necessary. I have no faith in humanity.
#107
Quote by Peedunkey
Anarchy would require that humans were majorly good and deserving of commendation. We're not. I'm opposed to pretty much every system of government we have in our world, but with our current population, some hierarchical setup would be absolutely necessary. I have no faith in humanity.
I've always felt that democratic systems were a compromise between a hierarchal system and a classless system. With democracy as long as the majority of people aren't terrible or misguided you can get some decent things going. A constitutional democracy is the next step, so that you can help prevent the tyranny of the majority while still allowing things to get done. Next would come a socialist system, wherein the central government spends the majority of its time trying to benefit the citizens as opposed to fighting wars and defining rights and things like that.

After that comes visionary future societies like anarchism, communism, or Ayn Rand's apocalypse cult of Libertarianism.
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
#109
Best post of the thread.
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
#110
Ayn Rand's confusing because I always find myself sort of agreeing with her, and then hearing her justifications for earlier sentences makes me want to puke in my mouth.

It's always like "hah, that's kind of a novel point WHOA WAIT WHAT THE FUCK JUST HAPPENED?!"
Quote by emoboy027
Is fingering an emo chick that likes yoy and that has fallen in love with you is it wrong to you to finger her during lunch outside in front of everyone at the high school? would you not care or lol even wish it was you?

Youztoobz
MIDI Magicalness!
#111
Every point Ayn Rand makes is like "So rationally one shouldn't be too x." And you're like "Yeah, being too x is totally bad!" And then she's like "If you are even an infinitesimally small amount x then you are WAY too much x. In order to correct for too much x, HYPERCAPITALISM HYPERCAPITALISM FOREVER."
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
#113
Quote by axeslash
Best post of the thread.

Not hard. This thread is terrible.
FUCK YOU! GET PUMPED!
#114
I'd make a joke about you contributing something but honestly why should you start now?
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
#116
I haven't read this post. At all. I think I might have skimmed through 2 or 3 posts, so don't chew my head off right off the bat.

I think Anarchy is purely an idea that will never come to fruition. Although perfect in description and by definition, it would never work. Human nature won't allow it. There are leaders, and there are followers. It's like that throughout the entire animal kingdom. There is always an alpha male, or someone in charge to look out for the well being of the rest of the populous.

I used to believe in an anarchic society, but I've come to realize something, that even if anarchy was a feasible way to live, the society we live in is too far gone to ever change short of a massive disaster or loss of a major utility that we use every day (i.e. running water, electricity, hell even the internet at this point).

I get the ideas of Anarchy, I get that it appeals to a lot of people (especially people who are involved with punk rock) because everyone wants to be an individual, unique, or different. Anarchy is such an idea that the majority of the people nowadays just can't fathom not going to Wal-Mart, or not registering their vehicle with the DMV, or even having a birth outside of a hospital so that their child will not have a Social Security Number (Friend of mine did that).

But guess what boys and girls, capitalism is here to stay. It's like trying to put Ford out of business by trying and designing a car identical to whatever they make in your front yard. Unless society takes a HUGE turn for the worse and it becomes marshal law, anarchy would never hold up.

Just my 2 cents. Call me a poser and let the flaming begin about how you have the solution to the worlds problems by making this into an anarchic society and how you are 100% sure that your theory will work, but just like how you can find a hole in my opinion, I can find plenty in yours.
#117
Quote by DammitYoda
I haven't read this post. At all. I think I might have skimmed through 2 or 3 posts, so don't chew my head off right off the bat.

I think Anarchy is purely an idea that will never come to fruition. Although perfect in description and by definition, it would never work. Human nature won't allow it. There are leaders, and there are followers. It's like that throughout the entire animal kingdom. There is always an alpha male, or someone in charge to look out for the well being of the rest of the populous.

I used to believe in an anarchic society, but I've come to realize something, that even if anarchy was a feasible way to live, the society we live in is too far gone to ever change short of a massive disaster or loss of a major utility that we use every day (i.e. running water, electricity, hell even the internet at this point).

I get the ideas of Anarchy, I get that it appeals to a lot of people (especially people who are involved with punk rock) because everyone wants to be an individual, unique, or different. Anarchy is such an idea that the majority of the people nowadays just can't fathom not going to Wal-Mart, or not registering their vehicle with the DMV, or even having a birth outside of a hospital so that their child will not have a Social Security Number (Friend of mine did that).

But guess what boys and girls, capitalism is here to stay. It's like trying to put Ford out of business by trying and designing a car identical to whatever they make in your front yard. Unless society takes a HUGE turn for the worse and it becomes marshal law, anarchy would never hold up.

Just my 2 cents. Call me a poser and let the flaming begin about how you have the solution to the worlds problems by making this into an anarchic society and how you are 100% sure that your theory will work, but just like how you can find a hole in my opinion, I can find plenty in yours.



#118
Quote by DammitYoda
I haven't read this post. At all. I think I might have skimmed through 2 or 3 posts, so don't chew my head off right off the bat.

I think Anarchy is purely an idea that will never come to fruition. Although perfect in description and by definition, it would never work. Human nature won't allow it. There are leaders, and there are followers. It's like that throughout the entire animal kingdom. There is always an alpha male, or someone in charge to look out for the well being of the rest of the populous.

I used to believe in an anarchic society, but I've come to realize something, that even if anarchy was a feasible way to live, the society we live in is too far gone to ever change short of a massive disaster or loss of a major utility that we use every day (i.e. running water, electricity, hell even the internet at this point).

I get the ideas of Anarchy, I get that it appeals to a lot of people (especially people who are involved with punk rock) because everyone wants to be an individual, unique, or different. Anarchy is such an idea that the majority of the people nowadays just can't fathom not going to Wal-Mart, or not registering their vehicle with the DMV, or even having a birth outside of a hospital so that their child will not have a Social Security Number (Friend of mine did that).

But guess what boys and girls, capitalism is here to stay. It's like trying to put Ford out of business by trying and designing a car identical to whatever they make in your front yard. Unless society takes a HUGE turn for the worse and it becomes marshal law, anarchy would never hold up.

Just my 2 cents. Call me a poser and let the flaming begin about how you have the solution to the worlds problems by making this into an anarchic society and how you are 100% sure that your theory will work, but just like how you can find a hole in my opinion, I can find plenty in yours.



Your opinion only makes sense to people who have no understanding of Anarchy such as yourself. With Anarchy there WOULD be a government, a limited government that all participated in, but every community would have their own limited government consisting of EVERYONE in the community, of course some people will take the lead in trying to decide things but people must agree with what the people who are trying to lead the discussions say or else the people trying to lead the discussions and curve them will have no real voice over everyone elses.
Last edited by NegativePositiv at Jul 8, 2012,
#119
Quote by DammitYoda
Just my 2 cents. Call me a poser and let the flaming begin about how you have the solution to the worlds problems by making this into an anarchic society and how you are 100% sure that your theory will work, but just like how you can find a hole in my opinion, I can find plenty in yours.
Your opinion was typical moronic infantile fatalism then you finished it off with this beautifully arrogant statement.

I daresay this was the worst post in the entire thread.

EDIT: I will never let this thread die. EVER.
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
#120
Quote by DammitYoda
having a birth outside of a hospital so that their child will not have a Social Security Number (Friend of mine did that).

why