Anarchy or Dictatorship?

[Elenai]

Define government. Unless you're writing down laws that everyone must follow, I don't consider it government.

Rules for a specific guild are not laws that everyone must follow.

Government: A tool of which its purpose is to limit, and punish the abuse of free-will: Authority that does so.

You cannot govern a group without having a government, maybe, but groups easily exist without a ruler.

That is what we basically call a democracy. (majority rule)

Herd instinct == swarm mechanics. While bees and other swarming insects have strict hierarchies, a herd of buffalo has no leader.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bison

"During the breeding season, dominant bulls maintain a small harem of females for mating. Individual bulls "tend" cows until allowed to mate, by following them around and chasing away rival males. The tending bull will shield the female's vision with his body so she will not see any other challenging males. A challenging bull may bellow or roar to get a female's attention and the tending bull has to bellow/roar back. The most dominant bulls mate in the first 2-3 weeks of the season. More subordinate bulls will mate with any remaining estrous cow that has not mated yet."

Alpha male mentality.

"Bison herds have dominance hierarchies that exist for both males and females. A bison's dominance is related to its birth date. Bison that are born earlier in the breeding season are more likely to be larger and more dominant as adults. Thus bison are able to pass on their dominance to their offspring as dominant bison breed earlier in the season. In addition to dominance, the older bison of a generation also have a higher fertility rate than the younger ones."

Dominance.

Looks like a government to me!

When a predator shows up, the ones that see it run away, and the rest of the herd see them running and starts running themselves. I'm not sure any one buffalo could start a stampede, but if you get a dozen or so of your buffalo friends, you could probably start a stampede on false premises.

Two birds.

Unless you are saying you can't have civilization without a leader, you are abusing the word. Anarchy doesn't mean, "No working together," it means, "No ruler."

Anarchy means: "No government" according to the definition of today.

Anarchy;

–noun
1.
a state of society without government or law.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

It seems to me that "No leader" is not an anarchy, but is instead a different sort of government, the most similar form of government I can think of in that regard is a "Republic":

Republic;

–noun
1.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2.
any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3.
a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

In essence; you may have been using the wrong term for your ideal this whole time.

Which leads into the following:

Once again, define government. I suspect you may be stretching the word.

It may be that you simply are using the wrong term altogether.

Government is the tool created to limit, and punish the abuse of free-will, it is raised up in groups by sheer inevitable instinct.

You cannot be a group, if you don't agree on something, or have similar interests or goals. You can't enact those goals if you don't make the same similar decisions, or make the same decisions, you can't be a group unless you move forward towards a specific action, or goal as determined by the group, there are only two root ways in which these group decisions are made: Democratic form, or Alpha.

Two birds.

Hence: Civilisation being culture, which is a group of groups, inevitably must have a government. I did not say "Leader" mind you, but I did say Government, which Anarchy by its true definition as seen in today's culture and acknowledged by the dictionary, and society: Is anti-government.

You cannot ever be a group of anarchists. It is the equivalent of being an atheistic theist: "Group cancels out anarchy cancels out group".

I don't want to live in the anarchy you would create.

The anarchy I would create?...Hakeem, the anarchy I 'created' is exactly what Anarchy is. You can't have different types of anarchy! Anarchy is purely absence of government. It is a singular concept in itself, and alone of itself. Absence.

In truest reality, you cannot have different types of dark. You either have pitch black nothing, "Dark-Dark" (which is darkness, the absence of light), OR you have varying degrees of brightness, from very, very dim ('dark' as we call it) to blindingly bright.

Anarchy is Dark-Dark, government is varying degrees of light.

Even so, try as anyone might, I don't think such a selfish world could exist: It is against our nature. Even if people grew up without government, I don't think they could possibly be like that.

It already exists, with varying shades of light (government) keeping it from totally engulfing the world in abuse of free-will, atleast for the ideal of it.

And trust me...People aren't magically wonderful, and angelic. They are born, and they proceed to being hellions by the age of two for the most part, especially if they are undisciplined by authorities (government).

Because he's a danger to your life. He is clearly a violent person and wont hesitate to kill you. It's kill or be killed, remember? Steal or be robbed. If you don't take what Herod has, he will take what you have.

As far as I would be concerned, having been raised without any of the things I mentioned previously: Herod would merely have taken a mate. Who am I to judge his tastes? Why is he a danger to me? I'm not a little girl, neither am I intending to steal his mate, and I'm also passing through, or avoiding his territory completely.

In your anarchy, anyway. Mine raises people on these kinds of principals:

Your anarchy appears to not even be an anarchy. It is...something else, as far as you seem to be pressing it.

Your own selfish logic betrays you: It is safer to yourself to leave other people to their own business.

Yes it is! In an Anarchy where Selfishness = Survival.

It's even safer to form a partnership with mutual benefits. Strength in numbers. You, for your own selfish reasons, seek mutual partnership with other people.

Two birds, group, government.

Even if you don't, I would put a bullet in Herod's head.

In an Anarchy you wouldn't know to do so in the first place...You'd have been raised with zero moral background, where selfishness = survival.

The only possible reason you could have to put a bullet in Herod's head given the circumstances of an Anarchy, would be to take Amy for your own uses.

Where there is distinct military rule.

When Government abuses free-will, it is up to the people (their right) to abolish it, and replace it with a better form of government.

Anarchy is a form of neutrality when it comes to government.

No it isn't...Its ABSENCE: Absence can never be neutral by its very definition.

Given sufficient power, government has the ability to be far worse than even your anarchy.

"My anarchy" = Anarchy as it is.

Government when it ceases to limit, and punish abuse of free-will, abusing free-will itself, ceases to be government: having deviated from its function. But instead becomes a rogue agency that must be removed, and can be in time.

Anarchy removes every ounce of authority from society: Anarchy can have no authority but the authority of self-over-the-self. Abuse of free-will shall run rampant as the moral backgrounds and authorities that discipline, enforce, and permeate the culture are no more to hinder mankind's most selfish inner being.

Also: A candle might burn you, and it might be very dim compared to a light bulb, or a street lamp. And while darkness can't burn you...atleast with a candle you can see a little bit. If you are walking around perfectly blind, you are sure to hit a few things, and probably fall and break your neck, a burn is better than a deadly fall.

Now, give me evidence of a child soldier in Uganda that threw his grandma and child out on the street. There are families that break even with government. Unless you can show that all child soldiers disown their ties of kinship entirely, I am still right about blood ties being strong.

...Are you even aware of the child soldier problem that was in Uganda?

http://bbpbooks.teachingforchange.org/book/9781556527999

Anarchy doesn't even HAVE family ties, family is a form of government.

There are definitely the cases where people cut off their ties of kinship, but it is evolutionarily a bad thing: Parents that leave their children on the street are not likely to have very many offspring.

Herd instinct is great, isn't it?

Not when the government is military rule. A dictator can run the country any way he wants. If he wants to cause chaos, he could run the world into the deepest pits of hell.

And people who are raised in good governments will certainly put a stop to that.

With government, it depends entirely on the government. With anarchy, it depends entirely on the people. How the people act is what determines what the anarchy will be, and how they are raised determines how they will act.

And they will certainly act like hellions. You cannot be raised as an anarchist, let alone raised as a peaceful one. That defies the very nature of Anarchy.

When I say "my anarchy," and, "your anarchy," I am referring to the way we would raise our children in an anarchy, if we ourselves were raised in an anarchy. In anarchy, I would raise my children to work together without a ruler, and this would create a distinct culture. Under anarchy, you would raise your children differently, and that would create another distinct culture.

What you would do is merely create a small government...which would defeat anarchy, and its purpose; ceasing to be an anarchy.

I didn't say that was the only way to realize anarchy. I was merely stating that, given the optimum ability to control the minds of the populous, I could never take away their basic care for each other as members of the same species. Your anarchy is unsustainable because people aren't as selfish and bitter as you would have them raised to be. They would inevitably come to be raised the way I would raise them, because it is beneficial to work together.

My anarchy is what Anarchy is, and as such...is entirely unstable just like the Pure Anarchy of Anarchy is.

And to note: It isn't how "I would raise them to be": Do not imply that I am in essence, a bad parent. It is how people are when left to their own devices without authority/authorities in place, where in an Anarchy authority doesn't exist, and cannot exist at all, lest Anarchy cease to be.

Not the point I was trying to imply. The point is that an army of citizens can and will beat an organized militia. The communities will not fall to the raiders, even if the raiders were more organized and disciplined than the communities.

And I made the point in answer: That required Government, and Authority of some kind to do so!

Community has Government!

Two people to have something to trade that the other wants more than the item they are willing to trade, and for them to agree that trading is a lot easier than trying to kill each other.

And they trade, bargain, and etc...a form of authority is set in place between them, commitments are made, and wealth is shared, they make a decision together to reach the goal of gaining wealth: Hence a government.

Two birds works on the same principle in market, as it does in politics.

To get a "market" in the more physical sense, all you need is enough people like mentioned above to gather together.

Group.

No, that is pure rebellion, not pure anarchy. Pure anarchy is thus:
"You are well within your anarchic rights to make me leave!"
Saying, "There is no law saying I have to leave," is not the same as saying, "You can't make me leave." He definitely can make you leave. There is no law saying he can't make you leave, and there is no law saying you have to leave. You can either be a big boy and leave his store, or you can try to take over the store for your own purposes. Both are fully legal in the anarchy. Of course, if you take over his store, don't be surprised if the store owner next door treats you unkindly.

And here we have the flaw...

"Take over" = Authority

"To leave after being told" = To submit to authority

Both of which destroy Anarchy.

Fine, we'll use your definition and say it is government. I leave his store. I'm free! No more things on shelves! No more commands to get out! I'm free to do whatever I want! I've left his "government" and now it has no power over me.

I'll see you when you starve to death

Because there isn't any family to take you in (that's government), no unemployment line (that's government), no church to feed you (that's a group under the authority of God, both of which have government), and the very second you steal is the second you get shot by someone who decided to protect his belongings.

So basically, you either submit to another government, form your own, or you die...which either defeats Anarchy or makes it thoroughly useless to your survival (because you've starved to death).

In a world like the current one, there is a thing I call "The Cravendaver." The Cravendaver is an entity that makes "quadenblotches." Quadenblotches are written rules that are strictly enforced by officers of the Cravendaver. Examples of quadenblotches are that you must be at least this tall to ride certain rides. Another example is that you can't take the life of another human. Another example is that, every year, you must give money to the Cravendaver.

In a world with a Cravendaver, even after leaving the store, I'm still bound by the quadenblotches. Why the Cravendaver is enforcing its quadenblotches on me is a mystery.

Because society doesn't want people who rebel against it, and endanger their way of life, safety, and stability.

Why else are Haggledooglepoopids put in Fraggonhall when they splittlequitch the quadenblotche and abuse their free-will, and in doing so do harm to the huudlegruuf?

Sure, if you like to define government loosely like that. I can live just fine without the Cravendaver and it's quadenblotches, though.

You won't live for very long.

 

[Hakeem]

That is what we basically call a democracy. (majority rule)

Except that just having a group exist does not mean any decisions need to be made. Does furry fandom leaders come together annually to discuss the latest problems that plague the fandom? Certainly not. Even if they did, they couldn't force the fandom to adhere to whatever decision they make:
"Okay guys, we need to cut back on the yiff."
"YIFF IN HELL LEADERFAGS."

Also, I'm just now remembering, America is not a democracy. No, America is a representative democracy, or something like that. True democracy, where every citizen (who cares to vote) votes on every issue, has no leader: it is anarchy.

Pure democracy is only possible in anarchy.

Alpha male mentality.

Dominance.

Looks like a government to me!

Yes, indeed. Their mating rituals are strictly governed. That is irrelevant to my point: No one buffalo leads the stampede. They don't wait for the alpha male to take off before they decide to run. Their mating rituals have law, but their stampede habits are purely cloud. And no, nobody is voting in this cloud. They are all reacting of their own volition.

People aren't magically wonderful, and angelic.

No, but they are tied by blood. Every species favors members of the same species, because it is so evolutionarily awesome. Just like how mothers tend to be very protective of their children. It is not easy to make people cut off their ties of kinship.

In an Anarchy you wouldn't know to do so in the first place...You'd have been raised with zero moral background, where selfishness = survival.

You can't tell me who I would be under an anarchy. Only I can, and I can assure you, I would not be the type of person you say would exist in your anarchy.

Absence can never be neutral by its very definition.

Absence is often the only way neutrality can be obtained. Theists say God exists, and atheists say God does not exist. Only one with an absence of words is neutral. Government can be the best or the worst; it all depends on the government.

...Are you even aware of the child soldier problem that was in Uganda?

http://bbpbooks.teachingforchange.org/book/9781556527999

The memory racks Richard's slender body as he wipes away tears.

He was forced to kill his family. The bond was not severed willingly, it was stolen and obliterated. In an anarchy, there is nobody who forces you to throw your grandma or child out on the street, you have to do it willingly. Unless you can demonstrate most of these child soldiers killed their family and friends willingly, it does not show willingness to throw out your family.

Anarchy doesn't even HAVE family ties, family is a form of government.

My anarchy has families. Not only that, but it is the ties of blood. Even if you do away with the words mother, father, brother, and sister, there is a connection that transcends words.

Show me evidence that you can manufacture a person to willingly cut their ties of kinship.

It isn't how "I would raise them to be"

You said you would not shoot Herod if raised in an anarchy. What if you were raised in that anarchy by someone just like you? Would you then shoot Herod upon finding out about his crimes?

Do not imply that I am in essence, a bad parent.

Would you be, if you were raised in an anarchy?

That required Government, and Authority of some kind to do so!

Government and laws did not come about until after the revolution.

"Take over" = Authority

"To leave after being told" = To submit to authority

Both of which destroy Anarchy.

Not until someone starts making laws does it not become anarchy.

So basically, you either submit to another government, form your own, or you die...which either defeats Anarchy or makes it thoroughly useless to your survival (because you've starved to death).

Careful you don't contradict yourself. You have previously stated that anarchy is self-governance. Forming my own government with only myself as a member is something you previously stated is anarchy. I happen to be able to find food in nature just fine, thanks. No need for government or starving. After all, this is anarchy, so I obviously have my own personal methods of sustenance in order to survive.

Because society doesn't want people who rebel against it, and endanger their way of life, safety, and stability.

How does the Cravendaver and its quadenblotches help with that any more than people just shooting those that rebel against society, endanger its way of life, safety, and stability? It seems to me just shooting them is a very effective solution, you don't have to worry about them ever doing it again.

You won't live for very long.

As above. In fact, my sustenance comes from a garden on a remote island. I own a submarine that I park 20 feet below the water when on the mainland, where nobody would look, and if they did, wouldn't have the key, or likely the explosives, to mess with my submarine in any way. It's actually quite a wonder I ever leave the island to work at a store. Now that I'm fired, I'm free to spend all my time on this remote island and catch up on all my gardening.

On my island, I live without the Cravendaver or any of its officers or quadenblotches. I call this Cravendaverless state in which I live, "unarchy."

When Government abuses free-will, it is up to the people (their right) to abolish it, and replace it with a better form of government.

Which is impossible under military rule. The people are outgunned in full. Let's suppose I am a dictator. Controlling any given thing is a mere command away for me. Tell me any way you might rebel, and I'll show you how I'd deal with it.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

You know, if someone compiled all the random arguments about government from THW, you could probably get a Best Selling Book

(tries to change the topic - this has degraded to just Hakeem and Elenai going back and forth zealously, I doubt anyone else is even paying attention to this, perhaps this is an opportune time to close this topic)

 

[Hakeem]

We'll lose our wills to continue soon enough.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

You sure? it's not like this is the first or the last thread in which this has happened, you seem to have enough stamina to last you about 2 more pages at least

 

[Elenai]

Pure democracy is only possible in anarchy.

Pure democracy is still a government.

Two birds.

Yes, indeed. Their mating rituals are strictly governed. That is irrelevant to my point: No one buffalo leads the stampede. They don't wait for the alpha male to take off before they decide to run. Their mating rituals have law, but their stampede habits are purely cloud. And no, nobody is voting in this cloud. They are all reacting of their own volition.

Degrees of light.

No, but they are tied by blood. Every species favors members of the same species, because it is so evolutionarily awesome. Just like how mothers tend to be very protective of their children. It is not easy to make people cut off their ties of kinship.

Alligators, turtles, snakes, and frogs.

The only thing it takes for a human to disown his own kind is trauma, and trauma is expediently easy to obtain.

You can't tell me who I would be under an anarchy. Only I can, and I can assure you, I would not be the type of person you say would exist in your anarchy.

Yes you would. What else could you possibly be?

If colour doesn't exist in your world, there is no possible way for you to be blue.

Absence is often the only way neutrality can be obtained. Theists say God exists, and atheists say God does not exist. Only one with an absence of words is neutral. Government can be the best or the worst; it all depends on the government.

Presence: White { <red light>----------------<neutral hues>----------------<violet light> } White

Absence: Black, nothingness, No light.

He was forced to kill his family. The bond was not severed willingly, it was stolen and obliterated. In an anarchy, there is nobody who forces you to throw your grandma or child out on the street, you have to do it willingly. Unless you can demonstrate most of these child soldiers killed their family and friends willingly, it does not show willingness to throw out your family.

Doesn't matter if it was forced or not. It was.

Willing, and unwilling are only means apart from the goal.

My anarchy has families. Not only that, but it is the ties of blood. Even if you do away with the words mother, father, brother, and sister, there is a connection that transcends words.

Authority cannot exist in an Anarchy, family cannot exist without authority.

Show me evidence that you can manufacture a person to willingly cut their ties of kinship.

*points to himself* I disowned two of my sisters by choice, chose to disassociate with various friends for various reasons, it isn't as hard as you think.

Government and laws did not come about until after the revolution.

Before: Britain still existed, also: The 13 colonies had their own governments. Families still existed, and authority in the minute men ranks still existed.

You make the mistake of saying Government = Written law, when it is not dependent on paper to exist.

Not until someone starts making laws does it not become anarchy.

Laws need not be written to be law.

Anarchy does not mean: "Without written law" It means "Without Government".

Careful you don't contradict yourself. You have previously stated that anarchy is self-governance. Forming my own government with only myself as a member is something you previously stated is anarchy. I happen to be able to find food in nature just fine, thanks. No need for government or starving. After all, this is anarchy, so I obviously have my own personal methods of sustenance in order to survive.

Anarchy, perhaps, but so long as you have need of a wife, you will not be in an anarchy for long, there are a whole myriad of things that can happen to destroy the anarchy you secure yourself in.

The very second you make a friend, is the second anarchy ceases to be.

To be an anarchist, you must be truly, and utterly alone, forever. Because friends don't stick together for long if they never agree, or are never cooperative, or are never working towards the same goal, and ever one, two = a group. And I've already proved groups require and inevitably form a government.

How does the Cravendaver and its quadenblotches help with that any more than people just shooting those that rebel against society, endanger its way of life, safety, and stability? It seems to me just shooting them is a very effective solution, you don't have to worry about them ever doing it again.

Groups.

And he stole my cookie: Shoots his face. Is that justice? No.

As above. In fact, my sustenance comes from a garden on a remote island. I own a submarine that I park 20 feet below the water when on the mainland, where nobody would look, and if they did, wouldn't have the key, or likely the explosives, to mess with my submarine in any way. It's actually quite a wonder I ever leave the island to work at a store. Now that I'm fired, I'm free to spend all my time on this remote island and catch up on all my gardening.

On my island, I live without the Cravendaver or any of its officers or quadenblotches. I call this Cravendaverless state in which I live, "unarchy."

And you are thoroughly alone. You'll merely go insane you know?

Which is impossible under military rule. The people are outgunned in full. Let's suppose I am a dictator. Controlling any given thing is a mere command away for me. Tell me any way you might rebel, and I'll show you how I'd deal with it.

I kill you, and everyone in your dictatorial palace with a small nuke snuck into the border through an underground tunnel 30 feet beneath the surface dug by people from an neighboring country whom are too heavily defended for you to attack, and set up a democracy, and in return for this, the neighboring country is safe, and we give them access to diamond mines, trade negotiations, and two tons of solid gold out of the treasury, also, the diplomat from this neighboring country has a fancy for a certain girl from the former dictatorship, and introductions were thus quickly made between them.

...you asked. I answered with my usual imaginativeness .

__________________________________________________

And worry not, eventually...one of us will submit to the authority of the other!

 

[Dr Super Good]

Well without reading everything as that seems a lot of nonsense above...

Anarchy is best if everyone is smart and kind as then there is no need to waste production by having people to try and guide you as the communities will guide them selves foward. As you guess this never happens and instead you end up with witch hunts and gang wars.

Dictatorship is best if you have 1 extreemly smart and gifted ruler. As he is better than everyone at his job he will do it better than everyone could and as it is one person, he will be faster at it to. As you guess this never happens as selfishness, greed and nastyness generally are attributes needed to become a dictator as you do not just appear as one, you have to fight and kill to be one.

 

[Hakeem]

The only thing it takes for a human to disown his own kind is trauma, and trauma is expediently easy to obtain.

The difficult part is engineering it in the right direction that it leads them to disown. Usually people go to their families to deal with trauma. "I just saw a guys brain explode. HUG ME!"

*points to himself*

Now demonstrate that Elenais can be mass produced.

He stole my cookie: Shoots his face. Is that justice?

Nobody says you have to shoot him in the face for stealing your cookie. No laws, remember?

Maybe quadenbrotches are more "just," but you didn't answer the question: How is the Cravendaver and its quadenblotches more effective at dealing with people that rebel against society, endanger its way of life, safety, and stability, than the sheer efficiency of simply shooting them in the face?

And you are thoroughly alone. You'll merely go insane you know?

You're absolutely right. Now I remember why I was going to the main land: I was searching for a wife. I was working so I could afford a stable shelter so that a potential girlfriend wouldn't get turned off by my apparent homelessness.

Okay, so one day I find a girl that I trust enough to bring back to my island. She joins my unarchy. Now can she and I live in peace?

I kill you, and everyone in your dictatorial palace with a small nuke snuck into the border through an underground tunnel 30 feet beneath the surface dug by people from an neighboring country whom are too heavily defended for you to attack, and set up a democracy.

First, I wouldn't set up a democracy. I'd annex. Dictatorship, remember? Second, you're supposed to be a peasant under my military rule. You said it's the people that are supposed to abolish the government. It goes without saying that governments can pose a threat to other governments. While I would aim that a citizen never got anywhere near anything like that, if I had a stationary location that someone could find and attack when I am in it, you can bet I would have seismic monitoring devices or just really deep barriers. If something like a shovel hits the barrier, you can guess where I wont be.

 

[Tleno]

Oh, forgot to say it earlier guys, but as I mentioned earlier, it depends from people who are governing, not from goverment type... in Anarchy everyone is a part of a goverment, so it depends from all of them, at the same time in Dictatorship there only one or small group of people... so there's a higher chance that a dictator will be great leader than all of the people at the same time will be, which is immposible...

 

[Xeanorth95]

To Elenai, Hakeem:

I would like to thank you for your interest on this topic and your debates have been very interesting for all of us but this can go forever if you just disprove everything that other one says and its read all of these. I will not be able to follow up with the argument anymore but i had fun.

Xeanorth95 X)

 

[Hakeem]

In Dictatorship there only one or small group of people... so there's a higher chance that a dictator will be great leader than all of the people at the same time will be.

Bad people seek power.

 

[Deleted member 157129]

Authority cannot exist in an Anarchy, family cannot exist without authority.

Wait what, a family cannot exist without authority? I guess I am without a family then.
Certainly, the bonds made of love is strong enough to bind a family together without the need of authority.

As far as I can tell, this whole disagreement evolves around one single term, what anarchy really is. Well, it is quite clear when you consider what the original phrase describes:
[from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos without a ruler, from an- + arkh- leader, from arkhein to rule]
If there is no ruler, there is anarchy. In order for there to be a ruler, someone has to have power over everyone else within a society. In an anarchy no such person exists. There's no natural law that states one person always wields more political power than everyone else, thus an anarchy can exists.

 

[Elenai]

The difficult part is engineering it in the right direction that it leads them to disown. Usually people go to their families to deal with trauma. "I just saw a guys brain explode. HUG ME!"

Wrong kind of trauma.

You can probably take a guess though as to the right sort, I need not go further.

Now demonstrate that Elenais can be mass produced.

*points to the world and the various traumae that occur within it.*

Nobody says you have to shoot him in the face for stealing your cookie. No laws, remember?

No one says you can't shoot him in the face either, that is the fatal flaw: That and no moral background makes it even easier.

Maybe quadenbrotches are more "just," but you didn't answer the question: How is the Cravendaver and its quadenblotches more effective at dealing with people that rebel against society, endanger its way of life, safety, and stability, than the sheer efficiency of simply shooting them in the face?

Simple: A police force is usually more respectable as a means of justice, than a lynch mob. Or in this case, full blown vigilante upheaval.

Following your...strange...form of anarchy where groups magically exist:

An eye for an eye while justice, makes the whole world blind.

Vos steals a cookie, Gos shoots Vos in the face, Vos' friend Ros shoots Gos in the face, Gos' friend Dos shoots Ros in the face, Ros' mother Demetria de la mancha, shoots Dos in the face, then Dos' mother Brunhilde shoots Demetria in the face, then Demetria's daughter Uinefred shoots Brunhilde in the face, then Brunhilde's daughter Gunwine shoots Uinefred in the face, then Uinefred's boyfriend Fov shoots Gunwine in the face, then Gunwine's boyfriend Cod shoots Fov in the face, then Fov's father Jov shoots Cod in the face, then Fov's father Yog shoots Jov in the face, then Jov's grandson Pip shoots Yog in the face, then Yog's grandson Rigel Nigel Thaddeus T. 3rd the 3rd Esquire shoots Pip in the face, then Pip's best friend Huddle shoots Rigel Nigel Thaddeus T. 3rd the 3rd Esquire in the liver, then in the face, then Rigel Nigel Thaddeus T. 3rd the 3rd's butler Jef shoots Huddle in the face...

etc...etc...yadayada...all over a cookie.

When the police do it, it tends to be "Society" as a whole saying "This was bad" which for most cases puts an end to the chain of violence.

You're absolutely right. Now I remember why I was going to the main land: I was searching for a wife. I was working so I could afford a stable shelter so that a potential girlfriend wouldn't get turned off by my apparent homelessness.

Okay, so one day I find a girl that I trust enough to bring back to my island. She joins my unarchy. Now can she and I live in peace?

Well, you wouldn't be an unarchy anymore. You'd be a couplocracy.

...or else a dictatorship, trust me, she'll have control over you in some way or another...girls are exceedingly cunning... >_>

First, I wouldn't set up a democracy. I'd annex. Dictatorship, remember? Second, you're supposed to be a peasant under my military rule. You said it's the people that are supposed to abolish the government. It goes without saying that governments can pose a threat to other governments. While I would aim that a citizen never got anywhere near anything like that, if I had a stationary location that someone could find and attack when I am in it, you can bet I would have seismic monitoring devices or just really deep barriers. If something like a shovel hits the barrier, you can guess where I wont be.

Lol, a nuke doesn't take much to just 'set off' and still kill you.

It isn't like I have to dig underneath your palace, pop up and hug you: then set it off, I only have to get it in through the border, which can be done, then proceed to sneaking it into the palace, if I wanted to be absolutely sure.

Possibly in the form of a cake. Who would ever suspect a cake? Or heck, just have someone toss it over the fence, might be suicide, but...

Really, there are myriads of ways to take down a dictator. Time is one of them.

When a dictator dies, there is a window of opportunity...always a window of opportunity.

If the Bolsheviks could take down some of the most powerful and wealthy kings in all of Monarchdom, then surely a mere dictator can fall as well.

What is a king, but a family line based dictator with a crown, and cape?

Wait what, a family cannot exist without authority? I guess I am without a family then.
Certainly, the bonds made of love is strong enough to bind a family together without the need of authority.

Clearly you were not raised as a child, if there was zero authority...which might explain a few things.

As far as I can tell, this whole disagreement evolves around one single term, what anarchy really is. Well, it is quite clear when you consider what the original phrase describes:
[from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos without a ruler, from an- + arkh- leader, from arkhein to rule]
If there is no ruler, there is anarchy. In order for there to be a ruler, someone has to have power over everyone else within a society. In an anarchy no such person exists. There's no natural law that states one person always wields more political power than everyone else, thus an anarchy can exists.

And according to the dictionary...It means: "Without government", and that is what it is. Today!

Anarchy cannot exist.

By your definition of anarchy, all sorts of governments are anarchy...which is obviously an error filled and laughable claim if you stated it in a decent history class.

pardon this, but it makes a point

"There aren't very many people walking around saying they are gay to mean that they are happy: Neither do people say that they are going out to burn a few faggots to keep warm, to mean that they have gotten a few logs on the fire."

PS:

There's no natural law that states one person always wields more political power than everyone else, thus an anarchy can exists.

Yes there is...did you forget what an alpha male was?

I don't see very many wolf packs electing a senate by sheer instinct.

Isn't "Survival of the fittest" Supposed to be a natural law according to evolutionary science?

 

[Deleted member 157129]

By your definition of anarchy, all sorts of governments are anarchy...which is obviously an error filled and laughable claim if you stated it in a decent history class.

Democracy has a ruler, Dictatorship has a ruler. How could they then be considered anarchies? The president is a ruler. The prime minister is a ruler. The emperor is a ruler. Doesn't matter if they have advisers, or don't make any decisions all by themselves, they are the one representing the authority, they are the rulers. The only situation where there is anarchy is when there is no such thing. In a group where everyone decides together, there is no one that decides more than the other (even if by chance his proposals are generally accepted more often by the rest), thus there is no ruler, no one has power over the others. They all decide for themselves and can at any point disagree and/or leave the group. That is anarchy, not democracy. In a democracy, the ruler proposes something that the general public agrees or disagrees on, the relationship isn't both ways.

Yes there is...did you forget what an alpha male was?

I don't see very many wolf packs electing a senate by sheer instinct.

Humans are not wolves, and actually I think there's more to wolves than instinct, but let's not take that discussion now. We do not depend entirely on instinct, and we do not have an alpha male or female. Even if someone is stronger, nobody forces you to follow him. Survival of the fittest is not equivalent to there being one human that is the fittest and rules over everyone else, even if there were one human more fit than everyone else, there's no guarantee people will follow him/her, and who's to predict whether or not someone decides to kill him, surely two very fit humans can bring down one more fit human - can't really rely on honour. There's also the chance that the fittest doesn't want people to follow.

Take leopards for instance, they are loners as far as I know, yet they don't go about killing each other for the heck of it (merely to protect their territory/hunting grounds). I wouldn't be surprised if they could even get along, how else do they breed? What kind of government do they live in?

 

[Hakeem]

*points to the world and the various traumae that occur within it.*

With 6 BILLION people, any minority is numerous.

No one says you can't shoot him in the face either, that is the fatal flaw: That and no moral background makes it even easier.

Who said no moral background? Morals don't arise from quadenblotches, usually it is the other way around: Quadenblotches reflect the morals that exist already.

It stands to reason that most people wont shoot anyone over a stolen cookie.

Following your...strange...form of anarchy.

Unarchy.

An eye for an eye while justice, makes the whole world blind.

Then blind the whole world will become. As far as I'm concerned, your example effectively rids the world of terrible people who would kill each other over a stolen cookie. The Cravendaver and its quadenblotches does not have the same raw effectiveness at dealing with bad people.

When the police do it, it tends to be "Society" as a whole saying "This was bad" which for most cases puts an end to the chain of violence.

Sure, and that may be more "just," but is it as effective? In unarchy, problem people are dealt with in the most effective manner such that they are no longer problem people.

Well, you wouldn't be an unarchy anymore. You'd be a couplocracy.

Given that we don't have the Cravendaver and its officers or quadenblotches, it is still an unarchy.

...or else a dictatorship.

Sure, if you want to call it that. It's still an unarchy though.

Overthrow the Dictator

I only have to get it in through the border.

I have strict border regulations. That is to say, nothing goes in or out of my country. Digging is the only way, and really, I can put detection/barriers around the whole country. In fact, I think I'll do that.

Then proceed to sneaking it into the palace.

Most people will only see the palace on TV. The very few people who are allowed near the palace are monitored day and night. They can have nothing to hide if they work in such close proximity to me. "After all the dictator is the life of the country. If I die, the whole country will fall apart. Such is the way of things, and the responsibility I bear."

Possibly in the form of a cake. Who would ever suspect a cake?

I eat only that which is prepared in strict surveillance in the royal kitchen.

Or heck, just have someone toss it over the fence.

Walls are high for a reason.

Really, there are myriads of ways to take down a dictator.

And I have to protect myself against every which way. I'm a dictator, I must afford it.

When a dictator dies, there is a window of opportunity...always a window of opportunity.

Sure. In the meantime, enjoy the military state.

 

[Elenai]

Democracy has a ruler, Dictatorship has a ruler. How could they then be considered anarchies? The president is a ruler. The prime minister is a ruler. The emperor is a ruler. Doesn't matter if they have advisers, or don't make any decisions all by themselves, they are the one representing the authority, they are the rulers. The only situation where there is anarchy is when there is no such thing. In a group where everyone decides together, there is no one that decides more than the other (even if by chance his proposals are generally accepted more often by the rest), thus there is no ruler, no one has power over the others. They all decide for themselves and can at any point disagree and/or leave the group. That is anarchy, not democracy. In a democracy, the ruler proposes something that the general public agrees or disagrees on, the relationship isn't both ways.

Democracy does not require a president, merely election. But it is still a government.

I cite Two birds.

Humans are not wolves, and actually I think there's more to wolves than instinct, but let's not take that discussion now. We do not depend entirely on instinct, and we do not have an alpha male or female. Even if someone is stronger, nobody forces you to follow him. Survival of the fittest is not equivalent to there being one human that is the fittest and rules over everyone else, even if there were one human more fit than everyone else, there's no guarantee people will follow him/her, and who's to predict whether or not someone decides to kill him, surely two very fit humans can bring down one more fit human - can't really rely on honour. There's also the chance that the fittest doesn't want people to follow.

You have families, they have patriarchs, and matriarchs, you have stronger elder brothers and elder sisters that exercise control over the younger ones...

Just because we use different terms, doesn't mean we escape the same pecking order that exists by nature in our lesser social animals.

Also: Honour does not exist in an Anarchy. It can't for the same reason morality cannot.

Take leopards for instance, they are loners as far as I know, yet they don't go about killing each other for the heck of it (merely to protect their territory/hunting grounds). I wouldn't be surprised if they could even get along, how else do they breed? What kind of government do they live in?

They live in a solitary self-government, which is dissolved immediately upon mating, and re-instituted on leaving, as far as the males go.

As for the females, they raise a family of cubs: Hence a matriarch government.

But leopards are not social by nature like humans.

For a human, it is impossible to have an anarchy, unless you are thoroughly alone forever. Humans are not built to withstand that.

Also, it isn't uncommon amongst felines, for the males to eat the offspring: even housecats have eaten kittens...

 

[Tleno]

Bad people seek power.

Hmmm, I haven't tough about that...

 

[Deleted member 157129]

Democracy does not require a president, merely election. But it is still a government.

There's always someone in charge. It isn't a government if a bunch of people come together and make laws for fun, laws which nobody follows and nobody enforces.

When nobody is bound by rules, written law or not, because nobody made rules, nobody agreed upon a set of rules and/or nobody enforce rules, then it is anarchy. There is no ruler, there is nobody in charge, nobody has the right to do anything, everyone does because they can. Don't even try to call that a democracy, because if it is, I'm going to shoot someone tomorrow and see if everyone else agree that I am free to do what I want, just because I can, without having some law restraining me or a ruler that says I can't do this or that.

You have families, they have patriarchs, and matriarchs, you have stronger elder brothers and elder sisters that exercise control over the younger ones...

Just because we use different terms, doesn't mean we escape the same pecking order that exists by nature in our lesser social animals.

I don't know about your family, but my family certainly has no patriarch nor matriarch, let alone any brothers or sisters that have any authority over anyone else in the family. Neither do I know of any other family that does utilize such a system, except of course the Don Corleone family.

Also: Honour does not exist in an Anarchy. It can't for the same reason morality cannot.

Honour is merely about fairness and respect. You can respect someone even if they are equal to yourself.

They live in a solitary self-government, which is dissolved immediately upon mating, and re-instituted on leaving, as far as the males go.

As for the females, they raise a family of cubs: Hence a matriarch government.

But leopards are not social by nature like humans.

For a human, it is impossible to have an anarchy, unless you are thoroughly alone forever. Humans are not built to withstand that.

Not built to withstand what? On the contrary I'd say humans weren't built for the social life that is normal today, with all the stress, frustration and emotions in general that comes with it. Certainly you could not mourn over dead friends if you had none. There's either way a lot of people that prefer living alone in nature rather than with a lot of people around them all the time.

Heh, I'm not trying to say we should all stop talking to people, I'm just debating whether or not we really were made for the life we live today, because it doesn't seem that way.

 

[Elenai]

With 6 BILLION people, any minority is numerous.

10,000 out of 1 million is still 10,000 people.

Who said no moral background? Morals don't arise from quadenblotches, usually it is the other way around: Quadenblotches reflect the morals that exist already.

Morality, and Just Law are one and the same.

It stands to reason that most people wont shoot anyone over a stolen cookie.

They will if they aren't raised with any moral background.

Then blind the whole world will become. As far as I'm concerned, your example effectively rids the world of terrible people who would kill each other over a stolen cookie. The Cravendaver and its quadenblotches does not have the same raw effectiveness at dealing with bad people.

Law has more efficient effectiveness, than lynch.

Sure, and that may be more "just," but is it as effective? In unarchy, problem people are dealt with in the most effective manner such that they are no longer problem people.

If it isn't Just, I don't want any part of it.

Given that we don't have the Cravendaver and its officers or quadenblotches, it is still an unarchy.

No you just have a wife who lets you do what ever you please even if it hurts her, and you let her do what ever she pleases even if it hurts you, and you don't have a relationship at all where you make decisions together towards a goal, you pretty much aren't even married, you just have some sort of 'pretend relationship' where one or the other party says "I have a husband/wife named <name/name> but I never see him or have any relationship, I just say I do, which is tantamount to a lie"?

You can't have relationship, without authority between you. Authority is a form of government.

You are either a democratic system (you both lead if you want to put it that way, but there is still leadership), or one of you is subordinate to the dominant.

overthrow the dictator

with enough people...I can overthrow you in time. It is only a matter of time. History shows this to be true.

_____

There's always someone in charge. It isn't a government if a bunch of people come together and make laws for fun, laws which nobody follows and nobody enforces.

That would be an inefficient, yet still existent government.

When nobody is bound by rules, written law or not, because nobody made rules, nobody agreed upon a set of rules and/or nobody enforce rules, then it is anarchy.

Anarchy is the absence of government altogether. There will be those who follow rules, written or not, because rules are always an inevitable part of a group that has a form of government which always and inevitably arises from a group.

In essence, if no one is following the rules at all...no laws, basically your whole example: Then they aren't a group at all in the first place, and are utterly alone forever, and completely sealed away from each other, having zero level of relationship: Because that is the only way your example is even possible.

In which case, it won't be survival of the fittest that is their biggest worry, but the sheer insanity of permanent loneliness.

See what happens to those in solitary confinement, and why it is a form of torture.

There is no ruler, there is nobody in charge, nobody has the right to do anything, everyone does because they can. Don't even try to call that a democracy, because if it is, I'm going to shoot someone tomorrow and see if everyone else agree that I am free to do what I want, just because I can, without having some law restraining me.

You won't even care enough about anyone else to regard their existence, let alone shoot them. Such is the cost of permanent loneliness, that would be required to enact your example.

I don't know about your family, but my family certainly has no patriarch nor matriarch, let alone any brothers or sisters that have any authority over anyone else in the family. Neither do I know of any other family that does utilize such a system, except of course the Don Corleone family.

...so in essence, you are a perfect orphan who lived perfectly alone on the street? (because that is the only way you'll have no matriarch, or patriarch, or equivalent figures)

Either that or you weren't raised at all... >_> Which would lead me to only assume your family failed to be a group, let alone a family.

I know from my experience that I was raised in a typical sort of family with parents who held authority, told me to go to my room when I broke something or cursed, or hit someone, or made bad grades, and that I had an older brother who was able to wrestle me down and make me get out of his room, and sisters who played practical jokes, and were able to black mail rather efficiently...

Seems to me that alot of families are like that.

Honour is merely about fairness and respect. You can respect someone even if they are equal to yourself.

Survival of the Fittest which is the rule of Anarchy knows nothing of either of those things, not of respect, nor honour, nor equality, nor fairness.

Not built to withstand what? On the contrary I'd say humans weren't built for the social life that is normal today, with all the stress, frustration and emotions in general that comes with it. Certainly you could not mourn over dead friends if you had none. There's either way a lot of people that prefer living alone in nature rather than with a lot of people around them all the time.

Solitary Confinement, look it up is all I can say on that end. Perhaps even "The Feral Child", I forget the name.

Heh, I'm not trying to say we should all stop talking to people, I'm just debating whether or not we really were made for the life we live today, because it doesn't seem that way.

You can't have Anarchy if you have relationships, it is impossible, is my argument.

 

[Hakeem]

Morality, and Just Law are one and the same.

Yes. Even if you repeal a law, the morality that put it there in the first place is still there.

They will if they aren't raised with any moral background.

Evidence?

No you just have a wife who lets you do what ever you please even if it hurts her, and you let her do what ever she pleases even if it hurts you?

No. We are just like any married couple. We are still in an unarchy though, because we don't have the Cravendaver and its quadenblotches imposed on us.

With enough people...I can overthrow you in time.

How will you possibly gather people to oppose me?

 

[Elenai]

Yes. Even if you repeal a law, the morality that put it there in the first place is still there.

Because the law existed. And still exists in spirit.

Evidence?

Common sense. ^_^

No. We are just like any married couple. We are still in an unarchy though, because we don't have the Cravendaver and its quadenblotches imposed on us.

No you aren't an unarchy...you are a couplocracy. >_> Because of the whole 'Two birds thing".

How will you possibly gather people to oppose me?

...tupperware parties...

 

[TheDivineBoss]

Slowly but surely we're heading to an anarchist thread, on a dictator forum.

I'm seeing you guys suddenly bullshit about non-existent wives and tea parties all of a sudden...

Edit: I see the problem: It went bad since post 2.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Well Elenai just seems like Yin to Hakeems Yang, they will constantly argue but would most likely be empty without each other (ADMIT TO YOUR BROMANCE!)

 

[Darkness-4ever]

One's too stupid to realize that its an endless loop, and the others too proud to not reply. I won't say who is which.

 

[TheDivineBoss]

One's too stupid to realize that its an endless loop, and the others too proud to not reply. I won't say who is which.

Hakeem is simply Hakeem: Corrupt mod.

Elenai is just a TAZER ^{(Tautologous American Zionist Evangelical Roleplayer)}.

Hakeem's just trying to beat him in posts.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Well the longer they perpetuate this argument, the larger their post count becomes so you do have a point, if only Shiik was here to complete the love triangle.

 

[Deleted member 157129]

Your theory is all well and pretty, Wherewolf, but the thing is that there's no such thing as a post count enlarger in this thread.. and it's shiiK.

 

[Elenai]

Silly TheDivineBoss...I'm an Aletheian, not a T.A.Z.E.R.

 

[TheDivineBoss]

A progressive death metal Christian band guy? Lulz.

And I'm an Atlantean, bitch.

 

[Steel_Stallion]

Elenai and Hakeem's posts

holy mother of tl;dr

 

[Mechanical Man]

Dictatorship can at least bring some progress, unless the dictator is retarded, while in anarchy everyone look only to survive. But if it's retarded, the country should overthrow it, and if they can't it's three options: 1) they like it, 2) either the people in the country are retarded too (not enough smart people) and even without dictatorship won't accomplish much more, or 3) the forces supporting dictatorship come from outside and this is more an occupation than a dictatorship

 

[Fussiler1]

Hakeem is simply Hakeem: Corrupt mod.

Elenai is just a TAZER ^{(Tautologous American Zionist Evangelical Roleplayer)}.

Hakeem's just trying to beat him in posts.

OR they just like to debate!
Sorry for my blasphemous theory! :'(

 

[redscores]

Nah, Elenai is a typical believer, he cannot take the thoughts of other people as real. Thats why he is ALWAYS debating about things endlessly.

And Hakeem thinks that he is debating with a brain-dead zombie who can't trust other words as his own and GOD's .

So it is impossible to end that, just close the thread.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Well Hakeem obviously is holding up on his end of the grudge, otherwise he'd feel no need to argue with the "brain-dead zombie." Either he see's some hope, or he's too proud to give up on it

 

[Elenai]

I'm not a zombie.

 

[wereguy2]

Dude, Fight Club.
Anarchy fo' sho'!

 

[redscores]

Crap ya pantz, I punsh yo.

You can keep grammar errors .

Anarchy is just a dumb dream of psychological disoriented kids .

Thats the truth, it has only disadvantages, trust me.

And it is nearly completely impossible to maintain anarchy .

 

[wereguy2]

The whole point of anarchy is the lack of the "maintaining" of it, actually. It is a rather interesting ideal, and it CAN make sense.
Sure, a structured governmental system such as capitalism is better, but I would rather anarchy to totalitarian dictatorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Anarchism

 

[grato]

Note: Capitalism is not a governmental system.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Yes, please don't let this turn into Communism vs. Capitalism

 

[wereguy2]

It isn't? Well, you get the idea, western.. Stuff....

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Capitalism and Communism are economic systems that happen to require governmental assistance to carry out. Anarchy and Dictatorships are true systems of government as they are specifically how the government is (or isn't) organized.

 

[wereguy2]

I would say that Anarchy is more of an anti-system.

EDIT. Oh right, you said that.