• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • It's time for the first HD Modeling Contest of 2024. Join the theme discussion for Hive's HD Modeling Contest #6! Click here to post your idea!

Anarchism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Level 6
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
282
Lets bite into this for awhile.

An·ar·chism
–noun
1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.

So, whats your take? Do you think it can work?

P.S. Oh and enjoy the awesome music while you trying to crack your head open on this one.
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
I believe the most ideal form of government is none at all. When humanity reaches a state where each and every human being is capable of trusting one another, the middle man is completely unnecessary. I guess you can call it "benevolent anarchy".

Whether we are capable of accomplishing such a thing is beyond me. I've seen arguments for both sides and, to be quite honest, they raise more questions than answers.
 
Level 8
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
454
^ that is not anarchy, I suppose it's sort of like anarchy but not anarchy in a sense, because the anarchy is no government, that system is EVERYONE is the government if you think about it. Even anarchy in a way isn't anarchy because someone is leading the pack, making the rules although it isn't 'official' it's still in a sense, governmental.

No it's not possible and is stupid, imagine if theHive had no rules, you would get randoms spamming, flamming etc. is THAT what you want?
 
Last edited:
Level 27
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
4,979
Anarchy = Chaos

if you would apply it like... NOW! , *boom* chaos lol =p

Seriously i don't get those kind of things, people ARE different and some ARE better in some way than others i can't help it neither can you we just don't want to admit or believe it.
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
^ that is not anarchy, I suppose it's sort of like anarchy but not anarchy in a sense, because the anarchy is no government, that system is EVERYONE is the government if you think about it.
You don't seem to understand what a government is, nonetheless anarchy.

A government is an established system. In no way is my "benevolent anarchy" systematic.
Even anarchy in a way isn't anarchy because someone is leading the pack, making the rules although it isn't 'official' it's still in a sense, governmental.
Again, established system.
No it's not possible and is stupid, imagine if theHive had no rules, you would get randoms spamming, flamming etc. is THAT what you want?
No, there would not be random flamming, because this site isn't a shitty drumline.

That aside, if you were to classify the Hive as a civilization (which it most certainly isn't), it would be an autocracy. No matter what we say, Ralle has the final word. He follows suggestions and makes moderators because he doesn't have all the time in the world and he doesn't want to drive us off with douchebaggery. But you most certainly don't want to be ruled under an autocracy in real life because you don't trust one guy to govern your country's entire existence. The Hive is not a perfect analogy for real life.

And yet, even still, if you take in the context of the Hive, which is not a civilization, but a tool more than anything, even if there were no rules at all, and we were living in a state of lawlessness in this community, there would still probably be established conventions and the like, and we would still get resources. I don't want to go into the specifics, but if you want an example of a state of complete lawlessness that still lives under conventions and can cooperate with total unity, go look at 4Chan.
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Axe murderer comes to your house.

Goverment: You call to trained police, who can do his job and comes in 5 mins.

Anarchy: You call to mercenary who propably comes in 30 mins (if comes).
Axe murderer comes to your house.

Government: You call the 911 hotline and wait 30 minutes for a fat slob to ring your doorbell and silently curse you for making him get out of his car.

Anarchy: Option A) Without established government institutions for justice, people wanting to pursue a path in justice will become vigilantes or mercenaries. Call one of them.

B) Wonder what kind of idiot brings an axe to a gun fight.

C) Even if you don't own a gun, mercenary work should be an entire fucking industry by now, and so the catchy motto "Will save your life in 5 minutes or less!" will be the motto of at least 1 hired gun.

I'm not saying I know whether my proposed scenario is any more likely than yours. But I'm certain you don't know either.
 
Level 16
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
2,073
I believe the most ideal form of government is none at all. When humanity reaches a state where each and every human being is capable of trusting one another, the middle man is completely unnecessary. I guess you can call it "benevolent anarchy".

Whether we are capable of accomplishing such a thing is beyond me. I've seen arguments for both sides and, to be quite honest, they raise more questions than answers.
Benevolent Anarchy for the win!
 
Level 17
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
1,964
There is no ideal form of social structure. Different people use different structures and different times appropriately. Applying anarchy now wouldn't work, because it isn't the ideal time. If we get to a point where we need anarchy, there will be anarchy. These things just happen naturally, so to speak.

Personally though, no. I think the democracy we have now is fine, I'm not bothered any.
 
Level 14
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
1,547
Yes, that's it, who would train doctor's if not goverment? Well of course someone would steal books from that ruined library and try to learn but ...

EDIT: And if someone would make some kind of training and peace making organization, it would slowly become goverment.
 
Level 6
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
282
Yes, that's it, who would train doctor's if not goverment? Well of course someone would steal books from that ruined library and try to learn but ...

Peeps can do it old school like the medieval times where professionals take apprentices to pass down the art.
 
Even Anarchism needs someone to pioneer the idea, otherwise no one else will rise to action unless someone leads the way. In that manner total anarchy is impossible - also of course there's people that work to ruin for other people when unrestricted (take an example when Aaron made the mistake of linking a beta form of chat without a kick function in it to chat one day - a few people were quick to ruin testing by spamming the word "cock" over and over until he turned it off - simply because they could do whatever they wanted, they did).

BUT, the more minimalist a government is, the more ideal it is - like anything, perfection is impossible thus anarchy as a final destination is something that can be shrived for, yet never reached.
 
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Even Anarchism needs someone to pioneer the idea, otherwise no one else will rise to action unless someone leads the way. In that manner total anarchy is impossible
If society takes to a leader, that's fine. What's better is that they don't have to.

I swear, this is like when Elenai was trying to convince people that atheism is a religion.
also of course there's people that work to ruin for other people when unrestricted (take an example when Aaron made the mistake of linking a beta form of chat without a kick function in it to chat one day - a few people were quick to ruin testing by spamming the word "cock" over and over until he turned it off - simply because they could do whatever they wanted, they did).
1) Obviously, there's not going to be some instantaneous jump from a rigid government to anarchy. That would be as chaotic as vice versa.

2) In an anarchy, just because you would expect the government to have all the power doesn't mean that once you remove the government, the people are powerless to fend for themselves. In fact, I would say they are even moreso.

3) Perhaps this may or may not be the case in real life. The question is, are there more understanding, benevolent people in the world than there are people willing to wreak havoc? Are those people willing to unite without the guise of a government?
BUT, the more minimalist a government is, the more ideal it is - like anything, perfection is impossible thus anarchy as a final destination is something that can be shrived for, yet never reached.
Perhaps.
 
3) Perhaps this may or may not be the case in real life. The question is, are there more understanding, benevolent people in the world than there are people willing to wreak havoc? Are those people willing to unite without the guise of a government?

No, there aren't enough benevolent people in the world for that.... it's sad but true
 
Level 13
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,608
Resource based community? That rings bells... Anarchists are just another type of warlord communists... there is no capitalism, and the warlock or militia leader would get all the resources.
Except Anarchism is freedom from all institutions, so the so called warlord (lolwarlock) would first need himself an army, but he can't force others to serve him as in the essence of anarchism, he doesn't have the right.
 
Level 12
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
1,121
Anarchism has no rights :|

Anarchism has every right. It has no wrongs, seeing as noone is to stop you from doing yourself justice.

I really think anarchism could work, but some certain conditions would have to be met. With the axe murderer for instance, instead of paying taxes that pay for your Police, you pay a mercenary (Whether it be money or barter system) and he is expected to defend you. Of course, he could say "F*ck off" and not protect you, but that wouldn't be in his best interest. After he is seen to be a crappy service, people will stop paying him and move to another service.
This also goes to show with public education, food markets, and many other things that a government does or could do. Basically, people will depend on the quality of the services offered to them. Of course, punishments would be more or less harsh, as there will be less militia to enforce silly things like stealing, and for murder, murder would be the charge, but I sorta am impractical to the current justice system anyway.
 

jaZ

jaZ

Level 1
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
4
Anarchism has every right. It has no wrongs, seeing as noone is to stop you from doing yourself justice.

I really think anarchism could work, but some certain conditions would have to be met. With the axe murderer for instance, instead of paying taxes that pay for your Police, you pay a mercenary (Whether it be money or barter system) and he is expected to defend you. Of course, he could say "F*ck off" and not protect you, but that wouldn't be in his best interest. After he is seen to be a crappy service, people will stop paying him and move to another service.
This also goes to show with public education, food markets, and many other things that a government does or could do. Basically, people will depend on the quality of the services offered to them. Of course, punishments would be more or less harsh, as there will be less militia to enforce silly things like stealing, and for murder, murder would be the charge, but I sorta am impractical to the current justice system anyway.
So you're proposing that anarchism becomes a system of supply and demand in its own right because you suggest that competition plays a role in providing insurance and higher quality services.

Following that, is it not also reasonable to say that various communities would still form and maintain certain conventions due to the presence of a kind of enforcement, whether or not this enforcement takes the form of a physical militia presence or presence of competetition? If that occurs, isn't anarchy then comparable to a bunch of scattered community-states?
The only close analogy I know of would be the greek city-states and how they existed as independent entities and communities, though they grew to be mcuh more.

Also, @those of you who are presupposing that anarchy implies a kind of stereotypical post apocolyptic society, understand that anarchy does not automatically imply chaos; the only thing the word 'Anarchy' implies is the definition in OP, so if you somehow arrive at the conclusion that there will be chaos and crazy doctors cutting off your junk I hope you will provide a reasonable argument...
 
Level 12
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
1,121
But... Why should we leave our civilized society because of chaos?
I think that anarchy is worst thing that can happen.
This thread isn't about whether we should get rid of our government. It is about what would happen without it.

And plus, Killer Narwhals that kill off all the women is the worst thing that could happen. Heck, there are many more things that are worse than anarchy.
 
Level 8
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
454
Oh when you say public education I think you mean public execution, with anarchy public services will diminish and schools and universities will be basicly non existent, think French revolution but much much worse as anyone can get a gun :| Anarchy S U C K S !
 
Level 13
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,608
Oh when you say public education I think you mean public execution, with anarchy public services will diminish and schools and universities will be basicly non existent, think French revolution but much much worse as anyone can get a gun :| Anarchy S U C K S !

Again you amaze me with your well thought opinnions and truly valid points, indeed you are one deep thinker.

What exactly do you base the opinnion that public services will diminish? I would say that we have come to the point where there is always demand for certain things, and very VERY few people are actually completely self reliant. Now where there is demand there is also some form of supply. This is how it would work in Anarchism. One person would demand and another would supply. A mother wants education for his children so she hires someone to teach them. Alot of mothers want education for their children so a person builds a school to teach them in.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

None the less, I myself don't really believe in Anarchy. I mean the whole idea sound all fine and dandy, but in reality I find it to be too utopistic to ever work in real life.
 
Level 12
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
1,121
Oh when you say public education I think you mean public execution, with anarchy public services will diminish and schools and universities will be basicly non existent
Yes, put private schools (FTW) will still be there, as they always have been. Not only will they be cheaper, under the competitive economic structure that is availible in the free market, but they will be better. People will not send their kids to crappy schools. They either won't send them, or find a one that is worth their damn money. Trust me, public education is terrible, compared to private. I am making the transfer next year, and by reading some of the textbooks, I am in for a pretty retarded year.

So when I say that almost every government service can be replaced by a better, free market one, I am stating the truth.

EDIT: If this looks like I copied Tyranid, he beat me to the point by a few minutes, while I wrote this and did other crap
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top