Anarchy or Dictatorship?

[grato]

Wait what? Because anarchy leads to dictatorship, you rather choose dictatorship instantly? And why does anarchy lead to dictatorship?

I said I'd choose neither of them. And anarchy leads to dictatorship because it offers the best position for man to rise to power. P.E. the Roman Republic was in a desastrous state, when Augustus/Octavian claimed power and became the supreme ruler of Rome, and founder of the Roman Empire. The Republic was devestated by civil wars, revolts and the particular lack of law and order which would have been needed in order for a government to remain stable.

An other example would be Adolf Hitlers rise to power (I didn't intend invoke Godwyn's Law, but here it is). Germany was weakened by WW1, the population was unsatisfied with the loss of the war, and with the Treaty of Versailles. The Weimarer Government was not capable of providing security to the people, thus the people decided to vote for a change and gave their votes to the National Socialists party, who then put up Adolf Hitler as their leader.

Edit: My thought is, that neither anarchy nor dictatorship should be desired by a nation, and, if you do live in a democracy, you should be happy to be able to. Because as Winston Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government. Besides all the others."

Sure, not all those situations could be directly called an anarchy, but it's still very close - A state of chaos, and chaos drives people to elect a strong leader who seems capable of bringing back order.

 

[Deleted member 157129]

I said I'd choose neither of them. And anarchy leads to dictatorship because it offers the best position for man to rise to power. P.E. the Roman Republic was in a desastrous state, when Augustus/Octavian claimed power and became the supreme ruler of Rome, and founder of the Roman Empire. The Republic was devestated by civil wars, revolts and the particular lack of law and order which would have been needed in order for a government to remain stable.

An other example would be Adolf Hitlers rise to power (I didn't intend invoke Godwyn's Law, but here it is). Germany was weakened by WW1, the population was unsatisfied with the loss of the war, and with the Treaty of Versailles. The Weimarer Government was not capable of providing security to the people, thus the people decided to vote for a change and gave their votes to the National Socialists party, who then put up Adolf Hitler as their leader.

Edit: My thought is, that neither anarchy nor dictatorship should be desired by a nation, and, if you do live in a democracy, you should be happy to be able to. Because as Winston Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government. Besides all the others."

Sure, not all those situations could be directly called an anarchy, but it's still very close - A state of chaos, and chaos drives people to elect a strong leader who seems capable of bringing back order.

You see, this only qualifies if people do not want anarchy. If people actually do want anarchy, then there is no reason for them to want a leader.

 

[grato]

Yeah, but people tend to hate Chaos. They want peace and order in their homes. That's why an anarchy would never work. It's an utopia, just like Marxism.

 

[HINDYhat]

If people actually do want anarchy, then there is no reason for them to want a leader.

Anarchy suggests survival of the fittest, which in turn highly suggests that the unfit will not survive, and therefore will seek refuge within larger or more powerful groups, which eventually leads to leadership.

Or, you know, the unfit people can just accept their fate and willingly get killed or live in horrible conditions.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Well Anarchy doesn't exactly mean survival of the fittest, under ideal (yet impossible) conditions people under anarchy would be ruled by unwritten law - basically the good nature of humans.

In the same way that not all dictatorships are ironfisted mad men forcing the serfs to do the manually labor to fruit only the dictators profits, not all anarchy is insanity in which local warlords rise to power from the support of the less fit while vagrants roam the land taking whatever they may see fit to take. Of course this is all in theory, as from experience dictatorship often becomes example 1 and anarchy becomes example 2.

 

[grato]

What's wrong about anarchy and marxism is, that both systems presume that every human would act the same way under the same conditions, which just will never happen, thus making those systems utopiae.

 

[HINDYhat]

WherewolfTherewolf:

Some people are not bound by morality, and really will take advantage of other people for their own benefit. Then, it is clear that in any society, this sort of person will be present, by human nature.

So in an anarchy, what's there to do about it? Well, consider the following situations:
- You do nothing about it. Then these so-called bad people will have nothing to stop them, and they will prosper. People will fear them, and therefore they gain power, which ruins the concept of an anarchy by defying its social structure.
- You do something about it, like organizing a police force to regulate the law. Then what is the law? Who determines the law? Surely, not everyone can agree on what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, so you have several choices:

- Determine the law from what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable according to the peoples' opinion (or derivations of that): democracy.
- Determine the law from what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable according to an absolute ruler: dictatorship.
- I'll have to add here that moral law is ambiguous, and religion certainly doesn't provide a basis for moral law for the simple facts that there are several different religions with different ideals, and also because religion doesn't really provide trustworthy sources for its determination of moral law.​

So you see, there really is no option in an anarchy. Either you get owned by tyrants, or you switch to a different social system.

 

[Darkness-4ever]

WherewolfTherewolf:

Some people are not bound by morality, and really will take advantage of other people for their own benefit. Then, it is clear that in any society, this sort of person will be present, by human nature.

So in an anarchy, what's there to do about it? Well, consider the following situations:
- You do nothing about it. Then these so-called bad people will have nothing to stop them, and they will prosper. People will fear them, and therefore they gain power, which ruins the concept of an anarchy by defying its social structure.
- You do something about it, like organizing a police force to regulate the law. Then what is the law? Who determines the law? Surely, not everyone can agree on what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, so you have several choices:

- Determine the law from what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable according to the peoples' opinion (or derivations of that): democracy.
- Determine the law from what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable according to an absolute ruler: dictatorship.
- I'll have to add here that moral law is ambiguous, and religion certainly doesn't provide a basis for moral law for the simple facts that there are several different religions with different ideals, and also because religion doesn't really provide trustworthy sources for its determination of moral law.​

So you see, there really is no option in an anarchy. Either you get owned by tyrants, or you switch to a different social system.

You put in words what I could not, this is the most reasonable thing I've heard so far.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Of course this is all in theory, as from experience dictatorship often becomes example 1 and anarchy becomes example 2.

under ideal (yet impossible) conditions

I'm not marxist and I'm no utopian (I prefer Capitalism to Communism anyways on the whole Marxism vs. Capitalism thing), I do recognize that anarchy under "ideal" conditions is impossible. But then again, even under the chaos of anarchy would the hellish order of Dictatorship be any better?

 

[Elenai]

The thing I've learned is that both extremes on the spectrum are equally horrible, the only difference is that the horribleness is expressed in different ways.

 

[Hakeem]

Unless you believe morality is enough to convince people not to do "bad" things.

Can and does. Not only that, but the threat of other people retaliating scares people. Would anyone care about the law if there were no police officers? Certainly not. It's the very real threat of other people stopping you from doing negative things to them or others that gives pause to a criminal.

With anarchy, you simply make everyone take the law into their own hands. Well, the criminals make it that way, in any case.

Hakeem, the flaw in your thought is that you believe anarchy can exist in a group: "The Town/usenet/torrents", when it is impossible to do so, without a government existing in its midst.

Not at all. Take torrents for instance: It is a massive cooperative effort to share all data. There is no government controlling the data, saying who can upload what, and who can't upload what, and punishing those who upload viruses. The governments and corporations that enforce copyright law are only able to do it to a select few individuals, in an attempt to scare the rest of us that they can never prosecute. To put it in your words: The governments are a mere pack attacking the weak of the herd, while the rest of the herd remains safe, if not a little rattled.

Law is simply people saying, "We should stop those who upload viruses!" In reality, every client is equipped to deal with that problem: They don't need law to keep them safe from viruses. What's more, if people didn't learn for themselves how to identify or deal with viruses, which is exactly what would happen if someone were to protect the public from them, then they would be perfect victims from their inability to recognize or deal with viruses. Like the people today who get screwed over by corporations: They don't know they law, so they fall prey.

It is anti-herd, anti-pack.

I only define it as anti-law. I don't have any problems with groups existing or people being members of those groups. I just don't have any reason to join a group that says I can't do something.

To the victim it is a tragedy.

That alone makes it rape and theft.

But rape and theft to Job are merely the natural spoils of victory.

Sex and loot, to use Job's terms. Still, when there is a victim: There is a victim.

There is no law or reason that forbids Job from killing Dob for his mate: Its just survival.

Half right. There is a reason that forbids it: The victim. They have a perfectly good reason to protect themselves from Job: It is just survival.

In that vein

It doesn't matter what Sarina thinks.

It does if Job ever sleeps.

She's merely the mate.

No, she's a human with the ability and motivation to kill another human.

There is nothing to tell him he should think otherwise.

Until Sarina raids the gun closet while he sleeps.

It doesn't matter what the daughter thinks.

It does if she has legs to run away with.

There is nothing that says "NO" with authority.

You don't need an authority to say no. If you needed an authority to fight other people, Job wouldn't have been able to raid anything in the first place.

Law alone provides moral foundation in this purely secular system, but there is not government, moral, philosophical, or not, to provide it.

Except that of every single person who self-governs themselves.

Anarchy has no law, and as such it relies on blind-deaf-dumb-'mother nature' to provide a karmic justice that does not exist in my example.

But it does, in every single victim with the will to fight back.

The daugther and Tamo, Rob, Dob, Sarina, they have no justice, none.

So they must take it themselves, if they want it.

---

I can assure you of one thing: Job will not die of old age.

You can't avenge yourself if you are dead.

Law has the same problem. In both anarchy and law this is solved the same way: Others avenge you. Most often it is the family that wants vengeance the most. In American law, the family relies on the law to execute "justice." In anarchy, they enact "justice" themselves.

If there happens to be a group in the anarchy that sympathizes with murder victims, more power to them if they want to help the family.

Even if Sarina, or the daughter killed Job, the damage has already been done, and the death of Job's futile, fleeting, pitiful, (and in this system: worthless) life does not make up for their perceived losses, and if they torture him, or drag out his punishment they begin to institute a form of government, and worse yet, they themselves become the monster they are seeking to punish.

You system of law does not undo the damage done by criminals either. If Job kills Rob and Dob and rapes Sarina to bear a child, before the law catches up with him and puts him to death, it does not undo the damage.

No system can ever undo the damage, if the damage cannot be undone.

Anarchy suggests survival of the fittest, which in turn highly suggests that the unfit will not survive, and therefore will seek refuge within larger or more powerful groups, which eventually leads to leadership.

Leadership does not imply law. You can have leaders without them telling you what you can't do because it is against their law.

So in an anarchy, what's there to do about it? Well, consider the following situations:
- You do nothing about it.
- You do something about it, like organizing a police force to regulate the law.

• You do something about it, like get up of your own volition and shoot the morally depraved scum.

If an entire town in an anarchy isn't capable of dealing with criminals without:

- Determine the law from what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable according to the peoples' opinion (or derivations of that): democracy.
- Determine the law from what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable according to an absolute ruler: dictatorship.

Then I guess they'll have to deal with the pipe dream of law.

What? People can't take a dump without a committee?

Religion doesn't really provide trustworthy sources for its determination of moral law.

As opposed to law without religious influence, which is clearly oh-so-cited-and-logical?

 

[Devine]

All gouvernments are flawed. Every politician is corrupt and lives of our tax-money and if we abolish politics, anarchy will force us to make them come back (see hindyhat). I'd say we need some sort of counsil that watches over our taxes and procecutes the corrupt politicians but then again, the "vault men" would corrupt and steal from our state aswell. I think 1 republic ruling the entire world would do fine. Just give every president a nobel prize so he doesn't need to steal money from the state.
But then again, people will colonise other planets in the near future and will probably demand to be independant (see America's history). Which would mean the human race'd be divided again and they might just start more wars (how 2 warcraft in space, duno lol but I think nukes might have something to do with it).
How about we forget this topic?
Edit:
@hakeem, that was a nice read. Although, I don't think anarchy is an option (you might have noticed that in my above post).
The "outlaws" can just run away and outrun any possible vendetta, then can come together and start raiding in group. Because in an anarchy, there isn't such thing as "the police" that is pretty good at putting someone away while small communities don't.
e.g. The dude that raped Sarina can just flee at night and by the time the community finds out and seeks retalitation, he's long gone.
This small community doesn't have people everywhere to track him down and to put him away like the police has.
Besides, anarchy'd just lead to various groups trying to become the strongest group to rule all (just look at Rome's history, when it was conquering our current Italy).

 

[Xeanorth95]

Anarchy depends on the people;

If people have a enough moral and cultural level than there wouldn't be any bad consequences of anarchy as stealing, robbing, murder, and any other crimes that ignores one's right to live a propper life.

Also "Law" is not simply people saying "We should stop those who upload viruses!" its the GOVERNMENT saying "We should stop those who upload viruses!" and those viruses are not always viruses and they may be wrong about judging the innocent (by innocent i mean morally innocent) people who may be suffering from the law because law defines their act as a virus.

It shouldn't be the law who enforces people to do some things that are considered wrong by the society and mostly by the government. It should be the people who are equal to them in every means.

I would prefere anarchy because as a human being i think we could all live a free life without being unrespectfull to others just because there is no law that scares us from doing those stuff..

 

[HINDYhat]

Not only that, but the threat of other people retaliating scares people.

Not everyone is fit and willing to act as a police officer in special situations.

Leadership does not imply law. You can have leaders without them telling you what you can't do because it is against their law.

If the leaders don't regulate stuff, what would they do? Organize parties? Naturally, if they're leaders, they should have more privileges than regular people, which suggests some sort of political authority. Also, I thought you agreed that there was a law: morality. And those who don't abide to it get shot in the face. Sounds like legislation to me.

You do something about it, like get up of your own volition and shoot the morally depraved scum.

What if it's am ambiguous issue? It's impossible for everyone to agree on these moral and ethical issues, like whether or not you should shoot the guy who stole from you a cookie, and at which point it's okay to shoot someone.

How do gangs form in the first place? You have a group of people who start out just wanting to support each other, without any real political authority. Naturally, this group enjoys having lots of stuff for themselves, and so they eventually get in conflict with others who don't want to just throw away everything they have so easily. Eventually, some people in the gang will grow increasingly more powerful than others, and so are formed leaders, who enforce whatever they think is the best thing to do. I think an anarchy would behave in the same way.

What? People can't take a dump without a committee?

Either way, any ambiguous ethical issue (like taking a dump) will create conflict, which clearly can only be resolved by shooting the people who don't agree with you in the face. The possible sane methods for making decisions are the ones I listed. I'll take anything which doesn't explicitly involve shooting everyone who disagrees.

As opposed to law without religious influence, which is clearly oh-so-cited-and-logical?

I never said that; it obviously isn't. I'm saying that a great way to cause conflict in a society, which leads to shooting in the face, is to enforce a law as per an old religious book, which only a few people might believe in, without counsel from others who might believe in different teachings and thus have different moral obligations.

 

[Elenai]

Alas Hakeem, in essence your system boils down to a tragically flawed, and even more tragic existence.

"Survival of the fittest" as everyone has already stated. And not only that...but if you want justice, you have to basically stain your own hands with blood, or uproot your life. And no one will die of old age.

Atleast under a government that holds the law: Their hands do not have to be stained with blood to receive closure. Their healing can begin without having to have killed to get it.

Anarchy provides Zero peace, and Zero peace of mind, Zero justice, Zero unstained closure...quite frankly its a blood bath waiting to happen, and abuse of free-will shall run rampant.

Anarchy is simply atrocious for that very reason.

Not at all. Take torrents for instance: It is a massive cooperative effort to share all data. There is no government controlling the data, saying who can upload what, and who can't upload what, and punishing those who upload viruses. The governments and corporations that enforce copyright law are only able to do it to a select few individuals, in an attempt to scare the rest of us that they can never prosecute. To put it in your words: The governments are a mere pack attacking the weak of the herd, while the rest of the herd remains safe, if not a little rattled.

***hunt, and the"Viking"bay are still governments: If they have moderators, and forums, and such, or even maintainers of the site itself.

As I proved earlier: It is impossible to be an anarchy, and also a group.

Law is simply people saying, "We should stop those who upload viruses!" In reality, every client is equipped to deal with that problem: They don't need law to keep them safe from viruses. What's more, if people didn't learn for themselves how to identify or deal with viruses, which is exactly what would happen if someone were to protect the public from them, then they would be perfect victims from their inability to recognize or deal with viruses. Like the people today who get screwed over by corporations: They don't know they law, so they fall prey.

Survival of the fittest, leads to tragedy. Atleast with the law, they have a means to fight: It isn't the law's fault that the people perish for a lack of knowledge.

In an anarchy, individual Hob, after being faced with a group of people ICorp (a very wealthy corporation, with lots of guns too, under the command of a shrewed and cunning leader) has no chance to survive...He WILL lose.

There is no law, no government that can mediate the abuses of free-will that will occur when ICorp, and Hob start waging war.

Now, to curtail the inevitable: Remember Hob is an anarchist, and as such it is impossible for him to be in a group, he will have no help in this endeavour.

 

[Deleted member 157129]

You don't seem to grasp the point, Elenai. You keep comparing anarchy to a governmental system, and claim it to be impossible because of this and that, but all those examples are based on the impossibility to be called a government. Anarchy is not a government and should not be treated as such.

"Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded man shall say to his assailant, 'If I live, I will kill you. If I die, you are forgiven.' Such is the Rule of Honor." - Lamb of God, Omerta

 

[Steel_Stallion]

curious, are there any "anarchist" countries right now? Or would it still be a country in the first place..?

If no, then that should probably give you reason to believe that anarchy doesn't work in modern society.

 

[redscores]

Actually, the deep parts of africa are quite anarchy-like, there are guerilla troops maintaining everything, thats why it is very dangerous there.

 

[Fussiler1]

Actually, the deep parts of africa are quite anarchy-like, there are guerilla troops maintaining everything, thats why it is very dangerous there.

..
Yeah, uhm, wouldn't the guerilla troops be a sort of government there then?

 

[redscores]

Well,... hm... kind of, haha, I guess there is no anarchy, because no one is equal, someone is always the strongest, and so it is no anarchy.

Well, whatever.

 

[Xeanorth95]

curious, are there any "anarchist" countries right now? Or would it still be a country in the first place..?

If no, then that should probably give you reason to believe that anarchy doesn't work in modern society.

As sheek said anarchy is not a government type and i don't think that there can ever be any "anarchist" countries and maybe the modern society is not modern enough to let people live in harmony and peace without scaring them.

That should not be shown as a reason why there aren't any non-govermental societies (anarchist societies) maybe the world isn'T ready for it yet because the people aren't enough civilized.

So it depends on what you mean by "modern" i guess..

redscores

Well,... hm... kind of, haha, I guess there is no anarchy, because no one is equal, someone is always the strongest, and so it is no anarchy.

Well, whatever.

Just curious are you for anarchy or are you for Dictatorship?

Sorry if there are any grammer mistakes im not english..

 

[Steel_Stallion]

As sheek said anarchy is not a government type and i don't think that there can ever be any "anarchist" countries and maybe the modern society is not modern enough to let people live in harmony and peace without scaring them.

Modern Society = People, don't differentiate between them because "we" are a single entity, until "we" are ready there will be no peace or harmony.

And all of this "peace and harmony" crap is just theory, if it really were as easy as flipping to anarchy and throwing one of the core basis of civilization that developed over thousands of years out the window some people would've done it by now and succeeded. But they haven't.

There can't be total or long lasting anarchy because there will always be people who want to be in power, and no one is equal so there will always be one side that wins and takes control. Authority will always exist, and some sort of dominance will always influence the community as a result.

All this "peace and harmony" stuff is overhyped anyways, I'm perfectly happy with my life and so is everyone else I know. I can sympathize with those less fortunate, but that's life.

+de ja vu I'm sure I commented on a thread like this before with a similar argument.

++this should be in medivhs tower. (?)

 

[Elenai]

You don't seem to grasp the point, Elenai. You keep comparing anarchy to a governmental system, and claim it to be impossible because of this and that, but all those examples are based on the impossibility to be called a government. Anarchy is not a government and should not be treated as such.

Anarchy vs. Government, if the two are not comparable, or treatable in the same arena, then it is fruitless, and useless to even debate them in the same field.

"Anarchy is A, and Government is B: let us compare the two, and debate them"

"NO! You can't! Anarchy is a fish, not a letter (A, or B)! And should be treated as such!"

"..."

"Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded man shall say to his assailant, 'If I live, I will kill you. If I die, you are forgiven.' Such is the Rule of Honor." - Lamb of God, Omerta

Or else, civilised. I'd rather be civilised, and do things the right way, than be a barbarian, and do it wrong.

A man who breaks the law ceases to be "Man", but becomes a monster. To rise up against him through the law is not to rise up against your fellow man, but to bear down upon the neck of a monster with assured justice; and unstained hands.

The Law is an Axe, lifted up by society. It will do a much better job of lobbing off the head of an offender, than a vengeful knife in the back.

If I killed your family after torturing them, raped your girlfriend repeatedly (then killed her in cold blood), and stole your belongings, and family heirlooms: Sold them for cheap prices, all the while I have crippled you from the neck down, chained you up, and hung you from my ceiling to where you could never do me any harm to slowly starve to death:

I highly doubt you'd be thinking that band's lyrical quote. You'd call out for Justice from The Law, you'd find yourself thoroughly helpless to take your own revenge, and you'd never forgive me for the pain I dealt you.

You'd praise the police as they came in and flung me down to the ground to arrest me, and you'd adore the law. But you'd not be thinking of yourself as a fool, or coward for having been rescued.

 

[Xeanorth95]

Modern Society = People, don't differentiate between them because "we" are a single entity, until "we" are ready there will be no peace or harmony.

And all of this "peace and harmony" crap is just theory, if it really were as easy as flipping to anarchy and throwing one of the core basis of civilization that developed over thousands of years out the window some people would've done it by now and succeeded. But they haven't.

There can't be total or long lasting anarchy because there will always be people who want to be in power, and no one is equal so there will always be one side that wins and takes control. Authority will always exist, and some sort of dominance will always influence the community as a result.

All this "peace and harmony" stuff is overhyped anyways, I'm perfectly happy with my life and so is everyone else I know. I can sympathize with those less fortunate, but that's life.

+de ja vu I'm sure I commented on a thread like this before with a similar argument.

++this should be in medivhs tower. (?)

You are saying that anarchy is a barbaric way to live but you are saying that depending on how the world works in our day.

Im saying that anarchy is something that the world isn't ready yet because people don't have enough moral consciousness. I don't define anarchy as a chaos situation i define it as a world where people have high moral consciousness and respect to other lives.

Im not saying that its not an utopia.

 

[Deleted member 157129]

Anarchy vs. Government, if the two are not comparable, or treatable in the same arena, then it is fruitless, and useless to even debate them in the same field.

"Anarchy is A, and Government is B: let us compare the two, and debate them"

"NO! You can't! Anarchy is a fish, not a letter (A, or B)! And should be treated as such!"

"..."

I'm not saying they can't be compared, but saying anarchy is impossible because it's argument A and argument B, in comparison to a government, is not productive. If there was no such thing as anarchy, there would be no term for it. So to clarify, this is not a discussion about governments, but rather; IF you had the choice to live in an anarchic society or a dictatorship, which would you choose, and why?

Or else, civilised. I'd rather be civilised, and do things the right way, than be a barbarian, and do it wrong.

A man who breaks the law ceases to be "Man", but becomes a monster. To rise up against him through the law is not to rise up against your fellow man, but to bear down upon the neck of a monster with assured justice; and unstained hands.

The Law is an Axe, lifted up by society. It will do a much better job of lobbing off the head of an offender, than a vengeful knife in the back.

If I killed your family after torturing them, raped your girlfriend repeatedly (then killed her in cold blood), and stole your belongings, and family heirlooms: Sold them for cheap prices, all the while I have crippled you from the neck down, chained you up, and hung you from my ceiling to where you could never do me any harm to slowly starve to death:

I highly doubt you'd be thinking that band's lyrical quote. You'd call out for Justice from The Law, you'd find yourself thoroughly helpless to take your own revenge, and you'd never forgive me for the pain I dealt you.

You'd praise the police as they came in and flung me down to the ground to arrest me, and you'd adore the law. But you'd not be thinking of yourself as a fool, or coward for having been rescued.

I wouldn't call for justice, all I would want is to die. True enough I'd never forgive you for what you did to my closest, but to me? As long as I wouldn't remain alive, I'd forgive you for that. If the police had come to lock you up in a jail for good, while I had to keep living, knowing I had failed my family and love, I'd vow to end your life painfully by any means necessary. I would regard the law as your protector, and my enemy.

 

[Steel_Stallion]

You are saying that anarchy is a barbaric way

no I didn't. I said it doesn't work, because it doesn't. You can't have a continuous state of anarchy, someone will take power.

Im saying that anarchy is something that the world isn't ready yet because people don't have enough moral consciousness. I don't define anarchy as a chaos situation i define it as a world where people have high moral consciousness and respect to other lives.

I don't think the world is ready for anarchy either. But the difference between me and you is that I think the world will never be ready for anarchy and is better off doing so. We live in a controlled state but it's the best our society can do right now; the people currently in power keep us in check. We're not dead and a lot of people are living comfortably, I can't imagine the same if it were some rebel outlaw gangs fighting over territory and resources.

Im not saying that its not an utopia.

I'm saying that it's not a Utopia, because it'll be a lot worse than what we've got right now. People complain too much, I'm honestly a-ok with the society I live in and I wouldn't want to throw it all away because of a theory that we might be better off throwing all of that coordination out the window.

 

[Xeanorth95]

I don't think the world is ready for anarchy either. But the difference between me and you is that I think the world will never be ready for anarchy and is better off doing so. We live in a controlled state but it's the best our society can do right now; the people currently in power keep us in check. We're not dead and a lot of people are living comfortably, I can't imagine the same if it were some rebel outlaw gangs fighting over territory and resources.

I dont think living in a controlled state is ok. Im not ok with someone controlling me and a huge part of worlds population lives under poverty. You and i may be living a comfortable life but is it ok to let those people die because they weren't born in a wealthy family? I think anarchy (or communism) is a way to prevent those people who live under bad conditions and give them a chance to live a propper life... When the world is ready why wouldn't it be good ? A world that everybody is equal and everyone is judged by societies moral consciousness sounds nice..)

I'm saying that it's not a Utopia, because it'll be a lot worse than what we've got right now. People complain too much, I'm honestly a-ok with the society I live in and I wouldn't want to throw it all away because of a theory that we might be better off throwing all of that coordination out the window.

Im not "ok" with the way i live honestly. Go to school come home sleep.. Everywhere you go everybody tells you what to do and some of these to-do's are complete bullshit. No one says it will be all better for you if you do some sacrifices for other's good. If everybody was equal (even if that means nobody is rich) dont you think that the world would be a better place?

For example;
America attacked Iraq because they wanted x amount of oil and Iraq didn't give them any. If everybody had 1/4x oil than noone would attack someone because 1/4x enough for living but if you throw it all away for an oversea attack than the thing you would aquire wouldn't do any good for you and you would end up having 1/4 oil in the end..

 

[Hakeem]

The "outlaws" can just run away and outrun any possible vendetta.

Good luck with that. Especially the not leaving a trail part.

Oh, and this reminds me of another point: Living on the run is a very hard life. It is not easy. Heck, just being a nomad that doesn't give people shit everywhere he goes is hard enough. People live in houses for a reason. When it comes right down to it, living in harmony with other people is incredibly easier than the alternative.

Then can come together and start raiding in group.

Up to a point. The bigger the raid group the easier it is to raid, but at the same time, it becomes a lot harder to feed the whole group. This puts a very real limit on the size or a raid group. Also, the bigger the raid group the easier it is to track.

I'd like to point out that raid groups are against the entire world, even other raid groups.

In an anarchy, there isn't such thing as "the police" that is pretty good at putting someone away while small communities don't.

That's what the internet is for. "Watch out for raiders in the vicinity of..." The whole anarchy has very real motive to identify raid groups. Note that this doesn't not require law in any way. Someone posts a warning, others can listen or not. People that cry wolf will eventually get ignored entirely. It's entirely possible to set up a system like this with exactly as much government as torrents.

This small community doesn't have people everywhere to track him down and to put him away like the police has.

Yes, being a small community may prove very difficult in the anarchy.

Besides, anarchy'd just lead to various groups trying to become the strongest group to rule all.

Except that a raid group can only be a certain size. Once it gets to a certain size, they have to settle down and form a community in order to grow more. The issue is of communities that seek domination. The only way I can really think to counter the rise of government in an anarchy is to make the society as a whole nationalistic to anarchy. How can you possibly dominate a world that no longer accepts government?

Not everyone is fit and willing to act as a police officer in special situations.

Most people are fit and willing to protect themselves.

Well, they would be if they were raised in an anarchy, anyway.

If the leaders don't regulate stuff, what would they do? Organize parties?

Yes. Search and rescue, find the criminal, etc..

Naturally, if they're leaders, they should have more privileges than regular people, which suggests some sort of political authority.

More privileges? I guess they have the privilege of people trusting them to judge when to go after criminals, and when to give up the search. What more do they need? Why do they need to dictate what not to do to the people that willingly follow them? Making laws is not an implicit part of being a leader, but laying the rules and protocol for maximizing the efforts of a search and rescue party is definitely within their role.

Also, I thought you agreed that there was a law: morality.

I guess that may be a form of "law," but when I oppose "law," I'm opposing the writing down of a set of rules they everyone must follow. You can do anything that isn't that, but the moment that anyone starts dictating how everyone else has to live, and what they can and cannot do, that crosses the line of what I consider acceptable.

What if it's am ambiguous issue?

Then you better hope someone doesn't retaliate against your overzealous exercise of your right to retaliate.

It's impossible for everyone to agree on these moral and ethical issues, like whether or not you should shoot the guy who stole from you a cookie, and at which point it's okay to shoot someone.

What part of anarchy says what anyone does is any of your business?

Naturally, this group enjoys having lots of stuff for themselves, and so they eventually get in conflict with others who don't want to just throw away everything they have so easily.

Give an example. Most communities are stationary, so wont ever really come into conflict with other communities such that there needs to be any physical conflict.

Eventually, some people in the gang will grow increasingly more powerful than others, and so are formed leaders, who enforce whatever they think is the best thing to do. I think an anarchy would behave in the same way.

And you may very well be right. The reason I choose the word anarchy is that, in order to stymie the rise of power to the point of law, the society as a whole will have to reject government. I could say my doctrine is "anti-law" and support all the things like police and courts and post office networks like we have today, but it has a different effect than pushing for anarchy has.

I'll take anything which doesn't explicitly involve shooting everyone who disagrees.

Whence comes disagreement when everyone minds their own business? I don't push for shooting everyone over things like accidentally rear-ending someone. I support people talking it over and coming to a reasonable common ground.

The trouble is, all anybody is ever concerned about when they debate anarchy is the terrible things like rape and murder. It's already assumed that any two opposing parties oppose each other to the death because anarchy is oh-so-hostile-and-people-NEVER-want-to-get-along.

In an anarchy, would you shoot anyone who gave you trouble, even if they weren't threatening your life?

I'm saying that a great way to cause conflict in a society, which leads to shooting in the face, is to enforce a law, [...] which only a few people might believe in, without counsel from others who might believe in different teachings and thus have different moral obligations.

I would have to agree.

And no one will die of old age.

I can't say that. I can say for sure that Job wont die of old age, because he is diametrically opposed to everyone on the planet. That is all I assert as true.

Atleast under a government that holds the law: Their hands do not have to be stained with blood to receive closure. Their healing can begin without having to have killed to get it.

If you want to have mercy on the person who has wronged you, so be it. It's an anarchy: There is no law saying you have to shoot the person who has wronged you. You can lock him up if you wish.

I would advise you to look at the cons of the prison system. It is a matter of debate about the best way to deal with criminals.

***hunt, and the"Viking"bay are still governments.

Sure, I guess. However, are there also not completely unmoderated trackers? Is every citizen of the internet not free to choose unmoderated trackers? If you go to upload something, do ***hunt, and the"Viking"bay stop you? They may very well moderate you on their own sites, but you are still free to upload to the rest of the internet. As much as a government they may be, they can only stop you in their own territory. Their territory is insignificant with respect to the rest of the internet. Their government does not restrict my rights in the rest of the world, so for all their laws, I don't care.

If they started to try to enforce their rules on every tracker, then they would be an effective government. Until they achieve monopoly, they are as effective as law without a police force.

Survival of the fittest, leads to tragedy.

Only if the majority is unfit. The majority that is raised in an anarchy is fit to deal with it.

I will say it again: I do not support chaotic change.

Hob is an anarchist, and as such it is impossible for him to be in a group, he will have no help in this endeavour.

Fine. If he wants to go it alone, that's his problem. If I were to go it alone in an anarchy, you can bet I wouldn't stay still for very long if I knew someone I couldn't beat was after me.

Now, if ICorp starts buying out the local stores in Beeswaxville, what do you expect a town of anarchists who nationalistically hate monopolies are going to do? Keep in mind that this is an anarchy we are talking about, and no sane anarchist is going to be caught dead without a gun.

And all of this "peace and harmony" crap is just theory, if it really were as easy as flipping to anarchy and throwing one of the core basis of civilization that developed over thousands of years out the window some people would've done it by now and succeeded.

Just like if it were possible for man to walk on the moon, it would have happened by now.

Okay, let go back to when America was being formed...

We don't need to set up government, law is functionally useless.

If it were possible, somebody would have done it by now.

Now fast forward to today:

If anarchy is possible, why hasn't somebody done it by now?

Because the last time they had the opportunity, they didn't do it because they didn't have evidence of it working.

Your argument is quite literally circular: "We should not go to Mars because we have never been to Mars."

I must admit, without the internet, I'm not sure anarchy can survive. It may be that anarchy is just now getting around to being enabled because anyone on Earth can blow the whistle on a large organization. Unless governments fix themselves, and fast, people are going to see more and more that government is just as corrupt and self-motivated as it has been in deep history.

We live in a controlled state but it's the best our society can do right now; the people currently in power keep us in check.

For all of human history that I can remember, the government has never been there to server that purpose. In fact, for all of my knowledge, the ones who need to keep the others in check has always been the people.

 

[redscores]

And by the way, I am for nothing of both, because both have their righteous downsides.

 

[Steel_Stallion]

Just like if it were possible for man to walk on the moon, it would have happened by now.

Well yeah, but we've done that successfully. I'm sure there have been instances of something that can be closely compared to anarchy, but it's never been successful since some kind of group will eventually gain dominance.

Your argument is quite literally circular: "We should not go to Mars because we have never been to Mars."

I don't really see that but I'll clarify on the core of my argument: Anarchy won't work because it's not possible, someone will always be more powerful than the other and will take power.

You can't abolish authority in a community, there's always going to be some sort of "higher order" dictating your life. I really don't see how a continuous "anarchic" community can exist without not one form of dominant group taking control.

For all of human history that I can remember, the government has never been there to server that purpose. In fact, for all of my knowledge, the ones who need to keep the others in check has always been the people.

Governing bodies don't have a set purpose, it's simply a natural occurrence in any human society. One could even say it's part of our niche to establish a form of authority in our communities.

 

[Xeanorth95]

You can't abolish authority in a community, there's always going to be some sort of "higher order" dictating your life. I really don't see how a continuous "anarchic" community can exist without not one form of dominant group taking control.

Well yeah, but we've done that successfully. I'm sure there have been instances of something that can be closely compared to anarchy, but it's never been successful since some kind of group will eventually gain dominance.

Anarchy can only exist if everyone is against an authority so when they feel someone getting more powerful the people who are against an authority would stop that person from getting more powerfull and dominating others.

Governing bodies don't have a set purpose, it's simply a natural occurrence in any human society. One could even say it's part of our niche to establish a form of authority in our communities.

True,governing bodies do not have a set purpose and they are a natural occurence but when they get the authority they don't do good for others they only do good for themselves and anarchy is against this so it may be unnatural but it is a better and more rightfull way to live.

A person can prevent another person from doing a wrong (moraly wrong) thing without having a greater position.

 

[grato]

Anarchy can only exist if everyone is against an authority so when they feel someone getting more powerful the people who are against an authority would stop that person from getting more powerfull and dominating others.

That is basically ostracism. Once in the year, in ancient times, the Athenian people used to write the name of, in their sight, most powerful man in Athens, who they fear. The one who got the most votes would get exiled for 10 years, though he wouldn't loose any of his possessions, so that when he'd come back, he could live his normal life again. Of course, many people also wrote down the names of their neighbours who they didn't like or some nonsense, but eventually the system worked. Note though that this wasn't a form of government, but a mechanism used to prevent a tyrant from grasping power, and so to remain democratic.

 

[Devine]

Good luck with that. Especially the not leaving a trail part.

Who cares if you leave a trail? You're long gone. Besides, it's not like the whole community is chasing you with shotguns, I can imagine they've got other and more useful things to do.

Oh, and this reminds me of another point: Living on the run is a very hard life. It is not easy. Heck, just being a nomad that doesn't give people shit everywhere he goes is hard enough. People live in houses for a reason. When it comes right down to it, living in harmony with other people is incredibly easier than the alternative.

The people you wronged aren't going to try and hunt you down forever. The world is big, my friend.

Up to a point. The bigger the raid group the easier it is to raid, but at the same time, it becomes a lot harder to feed the whole group. This puts a very real limit on the size or a raid group. Also, the bigger the raid group the easier it is to track.

I don't know why you think a pack of criminals is easier to raid when they're in bigger numbers, but I can tell you that they're not. Set up a base camp and raid the local villages. Then use the land you've taken and use it to start a community with your bandits. Loot women and you've got
yourself some happy families. To be a raidgroup doesn't mean you can't settle down at some point. Feeding the group can be done. Unlike in the past, we have internet which, believe it or not, can also be used by the raidgroups to e.g. buy big ammounts of food. Besides, once the group has settled down, it'll be able to produce its own food. "Why don't they settle down in the first place then?", you ask. Because now they're rich and they're more powerful than any other community.

It doesn't matter whether you are tracked down or not. Once your in the bigger and more powerful group, you're safe.

I'd like to point out that raid groups are against the entire world, even other raid groups.

Yes, but nobody is strong enough to do something about it.
Unite against the raidgroups!
Where? The cities? Then what about the countryside which by the way would be pretty vital for food production because in anarchy, we probably
will go back to a survival economy.
What about we unite in the countryside? The countryside is pretty big, besides so it can be raided like everywhere. There is no way to know where to exactly form a front. Besides, this sounds like war to me. See what anarchy leads to? :3

The city has a lot of supplies in it so leaving it unprotected isn't exactly smart.

That's what the internet is for. "Watch out for raiders in the vicinity of..." The whole anarchy has very real motive to identify raid groups. Note that this doesn't not require law in any way. Someone posts a warning, others can listen or not. People that cry wolf will eventually get ignored entirely. It's entirely possible to set up a system like this with exactly as much government as torrents.

Raid groups cannot be monitored because they won't leave anyone alive.

Yes, being a small community may prove very difficult in the anarchy.

That's not the point, big communites will have the same problems.

Except that a raid group can only be a certain size. Once it gets to a certain size, they have to settle down and form a community in order to grow more. The issue is of communities that seek domination. The only way I can really think to counter the rise of government in an anarchy is to make the society as a whole nationalistic to anarchy. How can you possibly dominate a world that no longer accepts government?

Raid groups can settle down and still raid, have a capital city and other cities. Basicly, they'd found a new state. The people in the cities would be oppressed until they accept the new leader. So anarchy would lead to the founding of militairy states like Sparta used to be.

 

[redscores]

Anarchy is impossible, because if you would try to create it it would be instantly destroyed by the human behavior, you know, human are pack animals, alone they are feared, but when they can follow someone it is all ok, so a example szenario:

The Government will be destroyed, all the politicians killed, then chaos will bring havoc over the world for some time, but after 1 or 2 years there will be clans or raid groups which will be big enough to take over the world as a "new government", then the same shit will happen again and again and again, another clan comes, kills all of the current government clan and will take over the place, these clans will form a kind of police to terrorize people and keep them under control (sounds like Police in a more harsh way, right?), so there will always be a GOVERNMENT of somekind, anarchy is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain and is just a temporary state of confusion which fades with a new dictatorship rising most time...

 

[Xeanorth95]

That is basically ostracism. Once in the year, in ancient times, the Athenian people used to write the name of, in their sight, most powerful man in Athens, who they fear. The one who got the most votes would get exiled for 10 years, though he wouldn't loose any of his possessions, so that when he'd come back, he could live his normal life again. Of course, many people also wrote down the names of their neighbours who they didn't like or some nonsense, but eventually the system worked. Note though that this wasn't a form of government, but a mechanism used to prevent a tyrant from grasping power, and so to remain democratic.

Thanks for finding a word to describe my words but are you just explaining my words or are you oposing something because i couldn't see any words that says thats a bad thing. This is a way to maintain democracy only in anarchy maybe it would be something like; A man got powerfull and the crowd lynched him.. That may not be a really humain way of maintaining democracy but its a way.

 

[redscores]

I just told what I think, I didn't even read what you wrote o,o.

 

[Elenai]

Only if the majority is unfit. The majority that is raised in an anarchy is fit to deal with it.

And those who aren't...die, suffer, starve, get tortured, feel the brunt of injustice, right?

Come now, anarchy doesn't provide a single ounce of justice for Tamo, not even the execution of his murderer Job.

And what about Amy, a little girl who was kidnapped in secret at four years old and is now the concubine of Herod, a thirty year old man, and never seen again by her family, and then psychologically damaged to such a point where she does not know, or even remember 'freedom'? Her life as his concubine is all she knows. Where is her justice in this anarchy?

These are extreme examples yes...but things that really happen in the real world, that need to be applied to this...strange, thing you call an Anarchy. Even if the majority survive, what gives the world the right to deny the same for the weak?

I will say it again: I do not support chaotic change.

Impossible without Humanity ceasing to be what Humanity is. You can't tear down authority, and rebel against it on this type of scale without violence. It is impossible. Violence is always inevitable in rebellion.

The civil rights movement was fraught with violence despite Martin Luther King Jr.

I can't say that. I can say for sure that Job wont die of old age, because he is diametrically opposed to everyone on the planet. That is all I assert as true.

So is little Jimmy from down the lane, and Mrs. Nesbit the 60 year old who was left on the street because she was a burden to her family: "Useless for survival", so is little Tipples, the newborn baby...

It isn't "Job the evil one, versus the whole earth", it is "Everyone for themselves, and even Jimmy vs. Mrs. Nesbit, or Mrs. Nesbit vs. Tipples"

If you want to have mercy on the person who has wronged you, so be it. It's an anarchy: There is no law saying you have to shoot the person who has wronged you. You can lock him up if you wish.

There are no laws saying you have to press charges either. In an anarchy however, there is nothing stopping you from ripping off the skin of the guy who stole your cookie, and probing his insides with an electrified cattle prod either after letting maggots crawl all over his exposed flesh to eat his festering wounds.

And trust me...there are indeed people who would do that for a stolen cookie...or heck even a perceived insult. Anarchy lets them do that, get away with it, and go on with life to do it again as the momentum builds.

Alas though, you will merely answer me with the typical: "Group of people with guns"...

I would advise you to look at the cons of the prison system. It is a matter of debate about the best way to deal with criminals.

I support capital punishment, and also rehabilitation centers, as well as community service.

Sure, I guess. However, are there also not completely unmoderated trackers? Is every citizen of the internet not free to choose unmoderated trackers? If you go to upload something, do ***hunt, and the"Viking"bay stop you? They may very well moderate you on their own sites, but you are still free to upload to the rest of the internet. As much as a government they may be, they can only stop you in their own territory. Their territory is insignificant with respect to the rest of the internet. Their government does not restrict my rights in the rest of the world, so for all their laws, I don't care.

If they started to try to enforce their rules on every tracker, then they would be an effective government. Until they achieve monopoly, they are as effective as law without a police force.

They still remain a government, no matter how inefficient. At any rate: "Something is better than nothing"

On a second note, I'm rather tired of something, so...

Hakeem...prove to me logically how you can be a group, and an anarchy.

I see you using the terms "Town" alot..."Groups with guns", etc.

And also on that matter...Anarchy = zero authority...

If history has taught me anything, even if (and I stress 'if') it were possible to be a group of anti-authority-anarchists [a redundant term purposefully stated], they would be poorly organised, poorly disciplined, and a rabble of random peasants who are only looking out for #1 who just "happens to somehow be in a group" (when really its about as close to a group as this, and by that I mean not a group at all in reality) is certainly going to fall to the organised, disciplined, authority driven, governed, efficient, well armed, Roman legion.

what do you expect a town of anarchists who nationalistically hate monopolies are going to do? Keep in mind that this is an anarchy we are talking about, and no sane anarchist is going to be caught dead without a gun. Now, if ICorp starts buying out the local stores in Beeswaxville,

Market cannot exist without authority, and authority is government.

"Mom and pop stores have an owner, and that owner governs the employees"

Heck, the Market itself! Is a form of government.

Anarchy cannot have any form of economy therefore. Because the economy is riddled with authorities/authority, governmental authority, organisation/organisers, CEO-hierarchies, office cliques, the whole works...

Speaking of cliques: How are you going to strip humans of the social instincts that force them to rebel against anarchy?

Anarchy being by its very definition: Anti-Authority, anti-government, anti-pack, anti-herd (which inevitably must have either a democratic government, or an Alpha hierarchy), self-"Government", alone in and of itself.

Families are a form of government...families are the foundation of government.

Hakeem, I daresay, and I must inevitably conclude, I'm very sorry...but Anarchy simply cannot exist, it will be forever impossible, so long as Humans exist. Our instincts make that inevitable.

Anarchy must be a pure anarchy to be an Anarchy, and that means you can't even have the government that is present in a school yard clique.

Really, at this point Hakeem, Prove to me that Anarchy can even be possible. It seems to me that it is a bit like saying its possible for humans to sprout fish and fly.

 

[redscores]

Thats the first time that Elenai is right... ever... -.- shameful.

 

[grato]

Thanks for finding a word to describe my words but are you just explaining my words or are you oposing something because i couldn't see any words that says thats a bad thing. This is a way to maintain democracy only in anarchy maybe it would be something like; A man got powerfull and the crowd lynched him.. That may not be a really humain way of maintaining democracy but its a way.

I more or less explained AND opposed through explanation. First: Anarchy is not a form of democracy. Anarchy is not a form of government at all, thus, if people would form a democratic vote, it wouldn't be an anarchy anymore, wouldn't it? Still, if a way of living, like anarchy, could be only maintained by lynch law, like you say, that wouldn't necessarily be a good thing, would it?

 

[Hakeem]

Prove to me logically how you can be a group, and an anarchy.

Since the matter is of definition, and hence pure logic, I can certainly prove it.

Lets begin with the definition of anarchy:

Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler")

Well, I would have gone on, but that's really all I need. It is possible to have a group without a ruler. Take for instance, furries. I know of nothing that can be interpreted as a "ruler of furries," and furries fit at least one definition of the term group.

Henceforth, I'm returning to the original definition: Without ruler.
It is derived from the same root as archon, monarch, and hierarchy.

And here I was thinking I was the one abusing the word for sociopolitical reasons. :3

---

---

---

---

Who cares if you leave a trail? You're long gone. Besides, it's not like the whole community is chasing you with shotguns, I can imagine they've got other and more useful things to do.

The people you wronged aren't going to try and hunt you down forever. The world is big, my friend.

That depends entirely on how much you piss them off. Any one person with enough will can kill you. It doesn't take an entire squad to threaten your life.

I don't know why you think a pack of criminals is easier to raid when they're in bigger numbers.

I meant that it is easier for the raid group to conduct raids, not to be raided.

"Why don't they settle down in the first place then?", you ask. Because now they're rich and they're more powerful than any other community.

Fair enough. I don't know as that kind of logic will be statistically large in usage, though.

Then what about the countryside which by the way would be pretty vital for food production?

Well, what about it now? If a foreign country were to invade and go straight for our food supply, we might be royally screwed. The only real way I see to combat this is to actively hunt large threats. I can see the potential for cities to start living sustainably such that they have no need to protect the countryside. In such a case, the demand for food from the countryside also drops dramatically, meaning less crops are needed, meaning less acreage to protect.

You have a very real point though.

Raid groups cannot be monitored because they won't leave anyone alive.

Ever heard of a dead man switch?

That's not the point, big communites will have the same problems.

In a large enough community, allocating people to track down criminals and "put them away" is trivial.

Raid groups can settle down and still raid, have a capital city and other cities.

Fine. Just as long as they don't write laws. As soon as they start writing laws, they are at odds with the entire world of anarchy. Not that they will find cooperation with the anarchy anyway, being a raid group that everyone hates.

And those who aren't...die, suffer, starve, get tortured, feel the brunt of injustice, right?
[...]
Even if the majority survive, what gives the world the right to deny the same for the weak?

Anarchy. Everyone has the right do do anything. The thing you're missing is that you can't destroy human nature: People will always take care of the weak, diseased, and otherwise "unfit." That is how people evolved. We are strong as a whole because we take care about each other. What reason does speech have to evolve besides in a community that works together? Would wolves howl and growl if they didn't hunt in packs? Lions roar to tell everything to run away, but that can't develop into a more complex language like a community that works together has.

"How can they take care of others if they have a hard time taking care of themselves?"
Well, how can people take care of others in a system of law if they can't take care of themselves? It's not the people in need that I rely on for help in anarchy. If anarchy doesn't have prosperous people that can take care of others, that is one thing, but I see no reason government is the only way to prosper.

These are extreme examples yes...but things that really happen in the real world, that need to be applied to this...strange, thing you call an Anarchy.

Where is the justice in your world? If the law never finds Amy, how can it serve her justice? The problem of discovering a crime is universal.

How does the anarchy deal with it once it is discovered? Well, if you came across Amy, what would you do? Would you leave her for Herod to continue to abuse? Would you feel like putting a bullet in his head?

You can't tear down authority, and rebel against it on this type of scale without violence.

Given the context of the thread, nobody is saying that.

So is little Jimmy from down the lane, and Mrs. Nesbit the 60 year old who was left on the street because she was a burden to her family: "Useless for survival", so is little Tipples, the newborn baby...

Nonsense. Even in the harshest of worlds that exist today, people take care of their own.

It isn't "Job the evil one, versus the whole earth", it is "Everyone for themselves, and even Jimmy vs. Mrs. Nesbit, or Mrs. Nesbit vs. Tipples"

What makes you think it would be that way? It is human nature to work together. Even if I had perfect dictatorship control over a population, and conditioned them to be anarchists through and through and through upon my death, I could not stop people from caring about each other and working together for mutual benefit. Heck, it's not even human nature; this concept applies to all of nature. Do wolves hunt in a pack because of their written laws? Do the very cells in your body work together because there is a written law saying they can't kill each other?

In an anarchy however, there is nothing stopping you from ripping off the skin of the guy who stole your cookie, and probing his insides with an electrified cattle prod either after letting maggots crawl all over his exposed flesh to eat his festering wounds.
[...]
Alas though, you will merely answer me with the typical: "Group of people with guns"...

Would you let someone who did that live? Even if it was a complete stranger they viciously exercised their anarchic rights on, if you bore witness to the event, would you not feel that this person is a vicious murdered who ought to be put to death?

They would be poorly organised, poorly disciplined, and a rabble of random peasants who are only looking out for #1 who just "happens to somehow be in a group" (when really its about as close to a group as this, and by that I mean not a group at all in reality) is certainly going to fall to the organised, disciplined, authority driven, governed, efficient, well armed, Roman legion.

Are you aware of a period of history between 1760 and 1790?

Market cannot exist without authority.

Actually it can, the question is if money can exist effectively without government.

(Not that's it's existing effectively with government, but that is another debate.)

((Not that trade is the only way to distribute goods, but that is another debate entirely. ))

"Mom and pop stores have an owner, and that owner governs the employees"

"Governs: Conditionally pays," is really pushing it.

Speaking of cliques: How are you going to strip humans of the social instincts that force them to rebel against anarchy?

I wont, outside of them forcing a ruler onto me. If they want to have a ruler, I'm not sure telling them not to is in good faith with the anarchy. The moment someone tries to force a ruler on me, is the moment they have earned my contempt.

If a way of living, like anarchy, could be only maintained by lynch law, like you say, that wouldn't necessarily be a good thing, would it?

Better than the alternative, in my honest opinion.

 

[Elenai]

Well, I would have gone on, but that's really all I need. It is possible to have a group without a ruler. Take for instance, furries. I know of nothing that can be interpreted as a "ruler of furries," and furries fit at least one definition of the term group.

Henceforth, I'm returning to the original definition: Without ruler.
It is derived from the same root as archon, monarch, and hierarchy.

And here I was thinking I was the one abusing the word for sociopolitical reasons. :3

Furry Fandom: Major group > local furry groups > furry forums and fan clubs that support it = government.

So basically Furry Fandom = City states in Renaissance Italy, or Ancient Greece.

You cannot be a group without government. Democratic, or Alpha being the root options.

Anarchy. Everyone has the right do do anything. The thing you're missing is that you can't destroy human nature: People will always take care of the weak, diseased, and otherwise "unfit." That is how people evolved. We are strong as a whole because we take care about each other. What reason does speech have to evolve besides in a community that works together? Would wolves howl and growl if they didn't hunt in packs? Lions roar to tell everything to run away, but that can't develop into a more complex language like a community that works together has.

And they evolved that way specifically because of Herd Instinct, which requires a government to exist.

"How can they take care of others if they have a hard time taking care of themselves?"

"Strength in numbers"

Well, how can people take care of others in a system of law if they can't take care of themselves? It's not the people in need that I rely on for help in anarchy. If anarchy doesn't have prosperous people that can take care of others, that is one thing, but I see no reason government is the only way to prosper.

Because Anarchy is the very absence of prosperity. You can't be a civilisation and be an Anarchy at the same time. You can't prosper if you are not a part of a civilisation, humans aren't built that way, we exist to be in a pack/herd/tribe/culture, you can have none of that in Anarchy, it is impossible as I proved with the bird equation, school clique example, and even the market.

You can't prosper without 'market' (goods, products, wealth), you can't have a market without civilisation, you can't have civilisation without groups, you can't have groups without government, you can't have government in anarchy, and thus deductively Anarchy cannot exist in the human realm, indeed it cannot exist at all: Anarchy in a Human system is like trying to replace a liver with a tin can of air, it won't work, the body will rebel against it, reject it, and he either receives a new liver or dies.

Where is the justice in your world? If the law never finds Amy, how can it serve her justice? The problem of discovering a crime is universal.

But Anarchy has nothing, no justice, no system to even step towards it, Anarchy is absence itself: And as such atleast government has Justice, even a shaky attempt at a civilised court it is better than the lynch (which ironically can't exist because anarchy can't exist, and because it requires a group to lynch, which can't exist in an anarchy) at best, and absolutely nothing at worst.

How does the anarchy deal with it once it is discovered? Well, if you came across Amy, what would you do? Would you leave her for Herod to continue to abuse? Would you feel like putting a bullet in his head?

Most people wouldn't even know who Amy was, and if it were an anarchy I'd be looking out for #1, ME, why would I care about Amy? I was raised in a society without laws, government, or family values (because in an anarchy you can't have a true family either, family is a form of authority, it can't exist in a true anarchy, and an anarchy in order to be anarchy must be purely that: Anarchy), and with the lack of groups (because they can't exist either), I wouldn't have any religious background, God is a form of authority, so if I subscribed to anarchy I wouldn't listen to him...so quite frankly...

Amy would be royally screwed literally, figuratively, and helplessly, and I wouldn't give a care if she was or not, only for myself would I care. Because I was not raised in any sort of environment to teach me anything other than: "You are your own keeper, and you'd better do a good job of it, because its you versus the world, live, or die, and suffer no authority to have place within you."

As for bullet in Herod's head: Why would I waste a bullet on someone that I don't even care about? Heck I'd probably leave him alone so I don't get killed, let sleeping lions lie. Why would I waste precious ammo that I had to risk my life to steal, or make? Why waste ammo to save a rape riddled girl who is of no use to me? Why waste ammo for either of them when I have no concept of justice, and don't even know it exists, how would I shoot him in the name of something I have no clue even exists? Why waste ammo on a human, when clearly I want to kill something to eat?

Nonsense. Even in the harshest of worlds that exist today, people take care of their own.

And none of those people were ever raised in Anarchy. Those who were raised in something even resembling it are troubled, broken, and vicious. Let me point you to the former child soldiers in Uganda, and heck! Even they had a form of government!

Anarchy is the complete absence of that, and it would be far, far, far worse than that!

Because it is abuse of free-will that causes child soldiers, and rape, the purpose of government is to limit, and punish the abuse of free-will.

Without government abuse of free-will, which is rampant amongst human nature would reign without check, in such a way that the only way to fight abuse of free-will, will be to abuse free-will.

Anarchy leads to fighting fire with fire, and that leads only to more fire. As the idiom goes.

Government is water, and dirt, and with those you can atleast plant a rather healthy flower, called "Civilisation".

And even if that flower is an ugly thorned weed, it is better than ashes, and parched desert.

What makes you think it would be that way? It is human nature to work together.

Hence groups, market, government, civilisation: All of which Anarchy is antithesis to.

Even if I had perfect dictatorship control over a population, and conditioned them to be anarchists through and through and through upon my death, I could not stop people from caring about each other and working together for mutual benefit.

You can't stop them from building a government either, because you cannot kill the human nature, which requires that they group, and thus government grows from it.

You also can't stop humans from abusing free-will, Human nature may involve caring and compassion, but it also includes hatred, and maliciousness, selfishness. You yourself being human subject to those things, can't break or fix other humans.

Also, the very fact you would have to be a dictator to even form an anarchy leads to its bitter fate of being ironic, and quickly rejected, even if you succeeded. Government and the destruction thereof is a process, inevitably. If you a dictator were controlling your people to become anarchists (an oxymoron by the way), you would only lead yourself into an overhyped version of teenage rebellion, and you'd have violence on your hands. You either are a dictator, or you are amongst the anarchists. You can't teach someone to be an anarchist, through authority, and have peace, it is impossible.

Heck, it's not even human nature; this concept applies to all of nature. Do wolves hunt in a pack because of their written laws? Do the very cells in your body work together because there is a written law saying they can't kill each other?

There is still a government though, and the wolf who kills the alpha, or defeats him becomes the leader. And yes, there are laws that are in place for such things.

From a purely secular view, it is the law of History is written by the Victor, and the one in charge makes up the rules. Break those rules, get in charge, and write the rules, laws, and history to your whim.

Are you aware of a period of history between 1760 and 1790?

Government existed there too. Authority existed there too. The minute men were still under someone's command. Britain wasn't destroyed, and America almost fell! If it were not for the French, and the Native Americans whom were under their own governments and leaders.

Anarchy did not, and never will, win the day: Anarchy is absence, it can't win against anything.

Actually it can, the question is if money can exist effectively without government.

(Not that's it's existing effectively with government, but that is another debate.)

((Not that trade is the only way to distribute goods, but that is another debate entirely. ))

It cannot exist without government.

Markets require civilisation, civilisation requires groups, groups inevitably form, and require, Government, hence markets must have a form of government: Tribal, Democratic, Familiocratic, or heck, even Feudal.

"Governs: Conditionally pays," is really pushing it.

Still a form of authority.

"Put this on that shelf" = authority.

"NO! I refuse! It is my right not to do so! YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!" = anarchy/rebellion

"You're fired, get out, no pay today" = authority.

"YOU CAN'T MAKE ME LEAVE!!!" = rebellion against the authoritative command to leave and also anarchy. Which ironically, if the employee does leave, he's obeying authority, which is government, and hence breaks his connectivity to Pure Anarchy, which Anarchy to be Anarchy must be Pure to be so.

"Yes you will: *uses force*" = enforcing authority: Justice.

Face it Hakeem, you cannot escape Government in some form or another: Anarchy is thoroughly impossible.

I wont, outside of them forcing a ruler onto me. If they want to have a ruler, I'm not sure telling them not to is in good faith with the anarchy. The moment someone tries to force a ruler on me, is the moment they have earned my contempt.

And you shall be alone in your contempt, or else in a group with others who have equal contempt, and hence a part of a government that is born out of that group.

Two birds.

Anarchy is impossible, it cannot exist: It simply "Isn't".

 

[Little Sister]

You cannot be a group without government. Democratic, or Alpha being the root options.

Snipping xbox hueg wall-o-text.

I play games with my friends. We are a group. We are ungoverned.

The Beatles were a group. They played music. They were ungoverned.

 

[grato]

You are governed by your government and the Beatles were governed by the British Government, weren't they?

 

[Little Sister]

You are governed by your government and the Beatles were governed by the British Government, weren't they?

Not really. "My Government" has no say or control over what I do while playing a videogame or talking to friends over interwebs. The Beatles were individually governed by "Their Government" but the group was governed by nobody. Once they left, that was it, nobody had a right to decide for them.

 

[grato]

Not really. "My Government" has no say or control over what I do while playing a videogame or talking to friends over interwebs. The Beatles were individually governed by "Their Government" but the group was governed by nobody. Once they left, that was it, nobody had a right to decide for them.

Obviously wrong. If you and your friends i.e. amuse yourself by beating up people, the Government has the right to forbid you playing. I don't say that you really do that, just speaking hypothetic. Also the Government says which games you can play and which you cannot.

 

[Elenai]

LittleSister.

The Beatles had their record studios, they also made decisions together: Democracy.

You are under the authority of your parents (if you live at any decent home [live at home] that is), government, some sort of authority. You are a part of a government.

You and your friends as a group make decisions together, a democracy, or else someone in your group is the alpha.

Like it or not, you are surrounded, permeated, and enact Government by your very instinct.

 

[Little Sister]

Obviously wrong. If you and your friends i.e. amuse yourself by beating up people, the Government has the right to forbid you playing. I don't say that you really do that, just speaking hypothetic. Also the Government says which games you can play and which you cannot.

Thanks, firstly, for bolding the part of my post which would indicate I am loldumb and does not at all describe what I was saying as you attempted to pull it out of context.


Secondly, no again. The government can put whatever limitations in place that it likes but I can still acquire and play these games whether they want me to or not. The government is also unable to prevent me and my friends talking about and/or playing these games, or discussing any topic for that matter.

 

[grato]

Whatever you say. By the way, I agree with Elenai on this specific topic.

 

[Hakeem]

Furry Fandom: Major group > local furry groups > furry forums and fan clubs that support it = government.

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.

You cannot be a group without government.

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

And they evolved that way specifically because of Herd Instinct, which requires a government to exist.

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

You can't be a civilisation and be an Anarchy at the same time.

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."

You can't have groups without government.

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

"You are your own keeper, and you'd better do a good job of it, because its you versus the world, live, or die, and suffer no authority to have place within you."

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

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.

As for bullet in Herod's head: Why would I waste a bullet on someone that I don't even care about?

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.

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

Heck I'd probably leave him alone so I don't get killed, let sleeping lions lie.

And get out of the territory too.

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

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

And none of those people were ever raised in Anarchy.

No, they were raised in worse:

Let me point you to the former child soldiers in Uganda.

Where there is distinct military rule. Anarchy is a form of neutrality when it comes to government. Given sufficient power, government has the ability to be far worse than even your anarchy.

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.

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.

Because it is abuse of free-will that causes child soldiers, and rape, the purpose of government is to limit, and punish the abuse of free-will.

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.

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.

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.

Hence groups, market, government, civilisation: All of which Anarchy is antithesis to.

...In your anarchy. In my my anarchy, we only reject written law. Of course, written law is useless without a force to execute it, so what we actually reject is rulers that impose rules on us. We only reject the ruler, and nothing more. That is, by original definition, a valid interpretation of anarchy.

The very fact you would have to be a dictator to even form an anarchy leads to its bitter fate of being ironic, and quickly rejected, even if you succeeded.

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.

There is still a government though, and the wolf who kills the alpha, or defeats him becomes the leader. And yes, there are laws that are in place for such things.

Are they written down, in clear legal terminology?

(Not that legal terms are ever clear. <_<)

Government existed there too. Authority existed there too. The minute men were still under someone's command. Britain wasn't destroyed, and America almost fell! If it were not for the French, and the Native Americans whom were under their own governments and leaders.

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.

It cannot exist without government.

Markets require

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.

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

Still a form of authority.

"Put this on that shelf" = authority.

"NO! I refuse! It is my right not to do so! YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!" = anarchy/rebellion

"You're fired, get out, no pay today" = authority.

"YOU CAN'T MAKE ME LEAVE!!!" = rebellion against the authoritative command to leave and also anarchy.

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.

Which ironically, if the employee does leave, he's obeying authority, which is government.

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.

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.

Face it Hakeem, you cannot escape Government in some form or another.

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

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Yeah, they broke out the huge walls of text disproving each other, I'm out