Anarchy or Dictatorship?

[Deleted member 157129]

Indeed highly related to the Destiny versus Freedom poll, but I think it's safe to claim this is much more precise. I encourage people to think through why this kind of leadership, or lack there of, is better than the other. It's a serious query. Both have their upsides and downsides, and the people involved could potentially make very different outcomes.

Personally, I'm slightly more keen on anarchy rather than dictatorship knowing the dangers of letting someone control my and everyone else's life to variable extent. Anarchy does, naturally, promote chaos, though. Yet I am confident humans are capable of handling such situations. I should be backing up these statements, but I'd rather hear your opinions.

The word is yours, make it worthwhile.

Note: There is only two options because of obvious intentions, so please don't start complaining about the lack of other systems. I want to know which one, out of these two, is your preference.

 

[Elenai]

I like my safe middle ground.

 

[Darkness-4ever]

You kind of remind me of the city of Rapture in Bioshock and Andrew Ryan's dream, I think that city and concept sums up how I feel about the fate of anarchy and almost complete freedom of dictatorship.

 

[Hakeem]

Anarchy does, naturally, promote chaos, though.

No it doesn't. Chaotic shift promotes chaos. "Our country is now an anarchy!" as a headline on the newspaper is going to have the same effect as, "Our country is now fully communist!" (Or capitalist, if you happen to be a commie.) When people think the world is falling apart around them (in their immediate vicinity, at least), they will start to do things they wouldn't normally do. If, however, people are convinced relatively everything is working as it should, they don't have any extra reason to lie, cheat, and steal. All governments suffer the same amount of crime, it just depends on the mentality of the people.

Let me put it this way: If everyone on Earth thought anarchy was a viable law mechanism, is there anything anyone could do to make it not work?


However, I would choose dictatorship on two conditions:

• They will do the job right.
• They will not be replaced when they retire.

Of course, this means that the world needs to be prepared for the chaotic shift of the dictator's retirement. Frankly, changing dictators should be even more chaos-inducing than having the only one retire. In the end, I'm still choosing anarchy as the permanent government. Dictators are simply a luxury when they happen. I consider it impossible to sustain a line of dictators who can do the job right.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

I would rather have a dictatorship, because I don't trust the herd of sheep known as the general populace. Assuming that everyone other than me was competent, which is really a leap of faith akin to crossing the Grand Canyon on a dirtbike, I would gladly accept Anarchy; however, they are not, so I likely would not. An incompetent dictatorship would be several leagues worse than an incompetent public in an anarchic state, though.

 

[TheDivineBoss]

Everything seems to be great on paper, even the most brutal systems. But in practise is always goes wrong. Almost always.

 

[Deleted member 157129]

No it doesn't. Chaotic shift promotes chaos. "Our country is now an anarchy!" as a headline on the newspaper is going to have the same effect as, "Our country is now fully communist!" (Or capitalist, if you happen to be a commie.) When people think the world is falling apart around them (in their immediate vicinity, at least), they will start to do things they wouldn't normally do. If, however, people are convinced relatively everything is working as it should, they don't have any extra reason to lie, cheat, and steal. All governments suffer the same amount of crime, it just depends on the mentality of the people.

Aye, I guess you're right. Mainly because I chose 'promotes' rather than 'allows' .. though it's perfectly discussable whether there is such a thing as chaos in an anarchy, because there's nothing that states how people should act, and thus what a controlled environment would consider chaos, could be perfectly normal in an anarchic society.

Let me put it this way: If everyone on Earth thought anarchy was a viable law mechanism, is there anything anyone could do to make it not work?

I'd say it depends on what the general populace is acquainted with. Meaning if all they ever knew was anarchy, they obviously wouldn't crave for a dictatorship per se, though they might want to agree on certain rules within their own ranks -- but then again, that still qualifies as an anarchy, does it not?

 

[Tleno]

All those types of ruling are too extreme, all kinds of goverments that concentrate only on something are wrong. The goverment should be in a middle between these two, not one of these...

 

[ike_ike]

A government that's so weaksauce it has no influence whatsoever? You can only compromise so far.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

I like the system here in Norway
Basically we have taken the good from Capitalism and the good from Communism and melded it together.

 

[ike_ike]

Never compromise. NOT EVEN IN THE FACE OF ARMAGEDDON.

 

[Deleted member 157129]

So much talk about Democracy when I specifically asked not to discuss the options, but which out of these two.. they are two extremes for a reason.

 

[Fussiler1]

I like the system here in Norway
Basically we have taken the good from Capitalism and the good from Communism and melded it together.

The Netherlands too.

Also, I'd choose Dictatorship.
Sure, no actual 'freedom', but at least safe?

 

[zt2211]

Dictatorship.

I could easily follow someone else's rules, but I'd quickly get tired of having to shoot and kill people every other day to protect my interests.

 

[Tyranid]

Dictatorship.

I find people to be too selfish and aggressive to live in perfect harmon without something higher controlling their actions. In my opinnion anarchy only leads to a system where no one trusts anyone and everyone is only looking out for themselves. Everyone does what they feel is right, and only do something which benefits themselves.

 

[Deleted member 157129]

Tyranid, I chose anarchy out of the same reasons*, of course with a little more thought through it. It requires a mature society, but I believe that people would be able to live together in harmony without rules, if they knew no other way.

* I am sure you see the startling resemblance to Satanism in your examples.

Dictatorship.

I could easily follow someone else's rules, but I'd quickly get tired of having to shoot and kill people every other day to protect my interests.

What if you were obliged to kill people every other day to protect your dictator's interests?

 

[Elenai]

The problem with anarchy...is that humans simply cannot govern themselves fully, or for the most part efficiently.

They have emotions, and the vast majority are governed by them, or else they allow themselves to be governed by outside forces like media, the market, heck...even fashion.

Not enough self-control in the populace, and to teach them self control would require a massive change in human nature, a task akin to putting yourself through the eye of a needle as far as any man-made organization, ideal, or structure goes.

"Man cannot change Man into anything but Man or Monsters."

Anarchy is crippled by the very point that it is humans who are being dealt with: Anarchy is at its root "Self Government", and self government is not possible until human nature is changed to such a level that everyone on the earth is not governed by their flawed emotions, nature, or logical-perceptions. The irony is...that in order for a human to self-govern himself, he must cease to be 'human' as he is.

On the flip side: A dictatorship has its well known flaws as of current. Godwins law, Stalin, Soviet Russia, that sort of thing...

Even the current capitalist market is a form of dictatorship, in which one man, or group controls the flow of the market: The advertisement companies, the product producers...that whole idea. Which interestingly enough feeds into the whole "humans not governing themselves, but letting the market govern them, or their feelings" idea.

Basically, either extreme is simply bad because human nature makes it so, and allows it. A middle ground is your safest bet.

 

[HINDYhat]

A dictatorship has its well known flaws as of current. Godwins law, Stalin, Soviet Russia, that sort of thing...

Godwin's law?! Am I missing something, or is that completely irrelevant? Fairly sure you meant Murphy's law.

In any case, people are selfish bastards, and with selfishness comes a lot of other crap. And just to clarify:

ALL PEOPLE ARE SELFISH
BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE MORE SELFISH THAN OTHERS

Under anarchy, everybody would act as selfish as they wish. Under a dictatorship, there would only be a fraction of that amount of painfully selfish bastards. Therefore, I'd go for the dictatorship.

 

[Deleted member 157129]

I agree a democracy is the safest, but it is far from ideal. As for it being impossible for humans to be free of rule; has it even been tried? I don't think there are any examples of people anywhere at any time during the lifespan of human civilization where anarchy has been practised to it's full extent. Hence I believe it is quite a futile claim that humans are incapable of freedom. I say possible until proven otherwise.

 

[Tleno]

Actually I'm against both of the ruling forms, but Dictatorship is better than Anarchy...

HINDYhat, Sellfish is a man who loves himself more than other sellfishes.

democracy is not ideal. Ancient greeks elected a dictator for few years so there would be no democratic elections and the dictator would stablilze the situation... it was some kinda like Martial law...

 

[HINDYhat]

I don't think there are any examples of people anywhere at any time during the lifespan of human civilization where anarchy has been practised to it's full extent.

Somalia? As far as I'm aware, there was a period when they were completely rid of government.

 

[Tleno]

Hmmm... actually Anarchy was based on Socialism and it's main idea firstly was that people may be equal only without the goverment ruling them.
Well, firstly the situation in most of current really poor countries is anarchistic and as you see they are still poor, while some Dictatorships like China became really strong! well China has free markets and things like that, so you can also make a conclusion that the living quality depends more on a economy, not goverment type...

 

[Deleted member 157129]

Really now, is money the road to life quality? Only because money is necessary in our society. Our governments made money the key to happiness.

It's natural that an anarchic society will develop slower, because no higher entity can demand progress. Only when people are interested in developing will an anarchy develop. The sad truth is that most of our development is grounded in warfare and superiority. The shepherd with the strongest sheep wins. Whilst in an anarchic society the amount of interest is the deciding factor for how soon technology develops. If people don't feel the need for more, they will not make more.

Somalia? As far as I'm aware, there was a period when they were completely rid of government.

That's forced anarchy, and foreign countries surely interfered.

 

[Elenai]

Hindyhat: Godwins law is the whole 'hitler thing' (which I wanted to avoid mentioning him directly)

Hence I believe it is quite a futile claim that humans are incapable of freedom. I say possible until proven otherwise.

Humans in prisons are under an anarchy of sorts, there are two things that usually happen.

"They inevitably form a government" (gang leader type deal)

Or

"They shiv each other" (ruled by their emotions, etc)

Rarely do most exercise self-control, and usually then, only when the warden (The Law) is near.

Some might be capable of self-control, these usually don't end up in prison anyway, and of that group of self-controlled people the majority of it usually does so only because of Law. Cut out the law, and you have less people who exercise self-control. The remaining group of self-controlists are grossly outnumbered, and subject to becoming the victims of those who cannot.

Lets use a scenario of 4 people.

In an anarchical society: You have Dob, Rob, Job, and Sarina.

Dob is married to Sarina.

Rob is a self controlled individual, who owns a piece of bread.

Job is a raider.

Job is hungry, and he doesn't want to waste time growing his own wheat, milling it, and baking it to make bread: He 'steals' (no law, so it technically isn't stealing now is it?) the piece of bread from Rob.

Rob doesn't like this, as that is his only piece of bread, and he was saving it for dinner.

Rob and Job fight to defend their territory, and Rob dies in the fight. Job wins the piece of bread, and eats his victory.

Full, and satisfied, Job now wants to feed his other appetite. He wants to get lucky.

Now, next door, is Dob, and Sarina. Sarina is one hot, sexy, luscious piece of bread so to speak. Curves, blonde hair, blue eyes, full lips, the works...a goddess.

Now since there is no law, rape does not exist, its just passing on your genes afterall, and doing what nature tells you.

Job catches Sarina in the field, rapes her brutally, rapes her again, and does this for several days, until Dob has enough, and a fight insues to protect his mate.

Dob is killed, and Sarina is taken, and bears a daughter to Job.

The daughter grows up, and Sarina grows old.

Job rapes his daughter. But rape doesn't exist.

His daughter bears a son named Tamo.

Tamo is special needs, due to the incest.

Tamo is quickly killed because he is useless to his father/grandfather. This is not against the law, it is merely protecting the family genes right?

Basically, this example is just a story, and not entirely complete on the list of possibilities, but it shows what is possible when Law is destroyed. Sure, Rob, and Dob could have won the fight, but the possibility remains that Job being a raider wins the fight as well, and justice is not served as he has his way, what ever way that might be. He is ruled by his emotions, instincts, drives, hormones, and etc. Not self-control, there is no Law to guide it, protect it, enforce it.

Job represents the criminal element that already exists in Governed society, now let loose to be free in his work without Law to hinder him. Dob and Sarina represent the family unit, as well as Special Victims. Rob represents the labouring forces, the worker, the wealthy, the market.

People don't exercise self control for the most part, because they don't have a guide to do so, and without a law, and those to uphold it (which inevitably leads to government to maintain its integrity), mankind relies on his crude nature. Which leads to theft, rape, murder, etc, in order to gain the things he wants.

 

[Tleno]

Well, not only money. Raw materials and products made from them and things like that you know... still, govermnt type is not immportant, the most immportant thing is people governing the country...

 

[Elenai]

Exactly.

If Dob/Sarina, and Rob join forces, they can not only outnumber Job, but protect themselves as well, living safely, and supporting/raising up each other: Civilisation.

Herd Instinct.

Inevitably it leads to an arms race between herd, and pack. But thankfully the scarcity of resources limits it to a certain height, and if the herd builds itself up to be strong, it can take, and even destroy the pack that hunts it. (packs tend to be smaller than herds anyway)

 

[Deleted member 157129]

Hindyhat: Godwins law is the whole 'hitler thing' (which I wanted to avoid mentioning him directly)

Heh, Godwin's law doesn't serve as a replacement for mentioning Hitler.

Humans in prisons are under an anarchy of sorts, there are two things that usually happen.

"They inevitably form a government" (gang leader type deal)

Or

"They shiv each other" (ruled by their emotions, etc)

Rarely do most exercise self-control, and usually then, only when the warden (The Law) is near.

Some might be capable of self-control, these usually don't end up in prison anyway, and of that group of self-controlled people the majority of it usually does so only because of Law. Cut out the law, and you have less people who exercise self-control. The remaining group of self-controlists are grossly outnumbered, and subject to becoming the victims of those who cannot.

Lets use a scenario of 4 people.

In an anarchical society: You have Dob, Rob, Job, and Sarina.

Dob is married to Sarina.

Rob is a self controlled individual, who owns a piece of bread.

Job is a raider.

Job is hungry, and he doesn't want to waste time growing his own wheat, milling it, and baking it to make bread: He 'steals' (no law, so it technically isn't stealing now is it?) the piece of bread from Rob.

Rob doesn't like this, as that is his only piece of bread, and he was saving it for dinner.

Rob and Job fight to defend their territory, and Rob dies in the fight. Job wins the piece of bread, and eats his victory.

Full, and satisfied, Job now wants to feed his other appetite. He wants to get lucky.

Now, next door, is Dob, and Sarina. Sarina is one hot, sexy, luscious piece of bread so to speak. Curves, blonde hair, blue eyes, full lips, the works...a goddess.

Now since there is no law, rape does not exist, its just passing on your genes afterall, and doing what nature tells you.

Job catches Sarina in the field, rapes her brutally, rapes her again, and does this for several days, until Dob has enough, and a fight insues to protect his mate.

Dob is killed, and Sarina is taken, and bears a daughter to Job.

The daughter grows up, and Sarina grows old.

Job rapes his daughter. But rape doesn't exist.

His daughter bears a son named Tamo.

Tamo is special needs, due to the incest.

Tamo is quickly killed because he is useless to his father/grandfather. This is not against the law, it is merely protecting the family genes right?

Basically, this example is just a story, and not entirely complete on the list of possibilities, but it shows what is possible when Law is destroyed. Sure, Rob, and Dob could have won the fight, but the possibility remains that Job being a raider wins the fight as well, and justice is not served as he has his way, what ever way that might be. He is ruled by his emotions, instincts, drives, hormones, and etc. Not self-control, there is no Law to guide it, protect it, enforce it.

Job represents the criminal element that already exists in Governed society, now let loose to be free in his work without Law to hinder him. Dob and Sarina represent the family unit, as well as Special Victims. Rob represents the labouring forces, the worker, the wealthy, the market.

People don't exercise self control for the most part, because they don't have a guide to do so, and without a law, and those to uphold it (which inevitably leads to government to maintain its integrity), mankind relies on his crude nature. Which leads to theft, rape, murder, etc, in order to gain the things he wants.

First of all, law does not prevent people from doing what they do, but judge them for doing it afterwards. All you do with law is induce fear. Thus Job would still take that piece of bread from Rob, and if Rob survives (gives up his bread), he would file a lawsuit and have Job judged for stealing a piece of bread. I think it's safe to assume he'd get away with a small fee. However, if Rob dies protecting his bread, it will be the law enforcer's duty to track down whoever did it. There's nothing there to guarantees Job will be judged for murder before he can proceed to rape Sarina and kill Dob. Even that might go unsolved. His daughter is born and (grand)son is born without any effect. Then how does dictatorship solve this, compared to anarchy? There's the slight chance Job will get caught between any of the events and his punishment would be defined by the dictator, but let's say he's a childhood friend of the current dictator. I think he'd go free unless the dictator is lawful and doesn't budge for personal interests.

Exactly.

If Dob/Sarina, and Rob join forces, they can not only outnumber Job, but protect themselves as well, living safely, and supporting/raising up each other: Civilisation.

Herd Instinct.

Inevitably it leads to an arms race between herd, and pack. But thankfully the scarcity of resources limits it to a certain height, and if the herd builds itself up to be strong, it can take, and even destroy the pack that hunts it. (packs tend to be smaller than herds anyway)

Who's to claim Dob, Sarina and Rob can't join forces in an anarchic society?

 

[HINDYhat]

A dictatorship has its well known flaws as of current. Godwins law, Stalin, Soviet Russia, that sort of thing...

Riiight. And Godwin's law is:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Clearly, the derailing of internet discussions is an important flaw of dictatorships.

 

[Devine]

Anarchy.
Why? Because nobody should tell me what to do. However it's pretty obvious this would ... pretty much destroy civilization over time. Yay.

Riiight. And Godwin's law is:

Clearly, the derailing of internet discussions is an important flaw of dictatorships.

I lol'd.
Also, I watched that stargate film.

 

[Elenai]

First of all, law does not prevent people from doing what they do, but judge them for doing it afterwards.

I'd say the law against murder makes people think twice before pulling the trigger.

All you do with law is induce fear.

And it works wonderfully I must say. I'd rather a possible criminal be afraid to hurt me and thus not do anything, rather than be confident and go through with his plan.

Thus Job would still take that piece of bread from Rob, and if Rob survives (gives up his bread), he would file a lawsuit and have Job judged for stealing a piece of bread.

In an anarchy, there is no lawsuit, or justice. Only force. In which case, Rob would most likely be dead or enslaved at any rate...which oddly enough produces a form of government if he is made into a slave.

Government is simply inevitable it seems, unless the competition is killed.

I think it's safe to assume he'd get away with a small fee. However, if Rob dies protecting his bread, it will be the law enforcer's duty to track down whoever did it.

But only in a system with government.

There's nothing there to guarantees Job will be judged for murder before he can proceed to rape Sarina and kill Dob. Even that might go unsolved. His daughter is born and (grand)son is born without any effect.

But atleast with a form of government there is a far greater chance that there will be some form of justice.

Anarchy does not have justice, or a system to distribute it...not 'really' anyway, speaking from a purely secular point of view, without government, blind, deaf, dumb Nature does not dispense karma.

Then how does dictatorship solve this, compared to anarchy?

I didn't say I was supporting a dictatorship either: Remember I support "Balance".

But compared to nothing, something is always better than nothing, as far as a Justice System goes. A dictatorship atleast has one.

There's the slight chance Job will get caught between any of the events and his punishment would be defined by the dictator, but let's say he's a childhood friend of the current dictator. I think he'd go free unless the dictator is lawful and doesn't budge for personal interests.

If he does let him go free, that is a corrupt government. But atleast it is there to support some form of Justice. But as I said: happy balance. I'd rather have the democratic means myself...which ensures some level of justice, over absolute corruption-absolute power/Nothing.

Simply put, anarchy provides no safety, no justice. Dictatorships can indeed be replaced with better governments: atleast it is possible.

Who's to claim Dob, Sarina and Rob can't join forces in an anarchic society?

Human nature, and Herd Instincts. You cannot join forces without creating either a democratic system, or a pecking order.

It is impossible for Dob to pick decision A, Rob to pick B, and Sarina to pick C, and for each individual in the group to be doing action D. They must either vote, or altogether pick A, B, C: or do action D (which basically attributes to a unanimous vote), or else one of them must lead the others into actions based on his decision.

Anarchy is self-government alone, groups are impossible by its very definition, because anarchy looks out only for its own self interest, immediately upon being a part of the group you serve the interests of the group, more so than your own: If you wish to be a part of the group for very long that is.

 

[RiotZ]

Anarchy rules because there is no abuse of power that cant be taken down with your own ability XD there are no rules leading to one conclusion you better not fuck with the wrong guy

 

[Elenai]

Anarchy is absence: And in absence it provides no benefit. Also, Anarchy does not 'rule' it cannot rule because it is absence. That which does not exist cannot rule anything. On another note, it is taken down very easily, the only thing that needs to be done to defeat any form of absence, is to put something in it; fill it. The very second you institute authority, is the very second that anarchy is removed.

Darkness is the absence of light: Even the tiniest spark illuminates it, and fills the absence with itself: Defeating it, no matter how briefly the spark lasts.

Freedom is a gift that can be maintained, but like all gifts it can be abused. What government does (its purpose), is limit, or punish that abuse.

Anarchy does not provide freedom, it merely removes all the systems that limit/punish its abuse.

Government itself does not provide freedom either. Freedom exists, because it does. Government and Anarchy are merely two ways in which it is set to flow.

Freedom is like a river, it can be;

Wild, and ravenous: Anarchy (nothing)

Or controlled, and docile, usable for growth, power, and trade: Government (a dam, bridges, and flood walls)

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Letting a single person control all aspects of your life is a fate worse then death.

Though government is a necessary evil, allowing a totalitarian government to exist not only undermines the lives of all the people who do the actual work but also puts the temptation of power in a place where it is easily abused.

I guess between the two, I'd vote anarchy

 

[Deleted member 157129]

I'd say the law against murder makes people think twice before pulling the trigger.



And it works wonderfully I must say. I'd rather a possible criminal be afraid to hurt me and thus not do anything, rather than be confident and go through with his plan.



In an anarchy, there is no lawsuit, or justice. Only force. In which case, Rob would most likely be dead or enslaved at any rate...which oddly enough produces a form of government if he is made into a slave.

Government is simply inevitable it seems, unless the competition is killed.



But only in a system with government.



But atleast with a form of government there is a far greater chance that there will be some form of justice.

Anarchy does not have justice, or a system to distribute it...not 'really' anyway, speaking from a purely secular point of view, without government, blind, deaf, dumb Nature does not dispense karma.

I was talking about a dictatorship, or even a democracy, not anarchy. I thought talking about law and altering your story thereafter would be an obvious hint towards that.

As for thinking twice, to be quite frank, I believe those who think twice about killing someone because there is a law, would not kill someone when there is no law either, unless absolutely necessary. People in general don't just kill people for the joy.

Yes, if Rob became a slave, he would live in a dictatorship.

Human nature, and Herd Instincts. You cannot join forces without creating either a democratic system, or a pecking order.

It is impossible for Dob to pick decision A, Rob to pick B, and Sarina to pick C, and for each individual in the group to be doing action D. They must either vote, or altogether pick A, B, C: or do action D (which basically attributes to a unanimous vote), or else one of them must lead the others into actions based on his decision.

Anarchy is self-government alone, groups are impossible by its very definition, because anarchy looks out only for its own self interest, immediately upon being a part of the group you serve the interests of the group, more so than your own: If you wish to be a part of the group for very long that is.

Again, who's to say Rob and Dob disagrees completely? An alliance doesn't require mutual agreement on every topic. If it is in their common interest to remove the threat, here Job, then certainly Rob won't choose to help Job. Not does a group require a leader, and thus it is no problem with an anarchic gang.

 

[RiotZ]

Letting a dictator control your every thought would be ridiculous i would rather live on my toes in anarchy than live on my knees under a form of dictatorship

it would be like living in the Wild West (early years of american civilization in the west) there was apparently nothing wrong with that otherwise there would be no people living in america law was hard to comeby there may have been a few police but they were helpless to stop what was coming

 

[Elenai]

Again, who's to say Rob and Dob disagrees completely? An alliance doesn't require mutual agreement on every topic. If it is in their common interest to remove the threat, here Job, then certainly Rob won't choose to help Job. Not does a group require a leader, and thus it is no problem with an anarchic gang.

It is at that point: When they agree that it becomes a vote. Anarchy is absence, as I stated, and the government of self alone. A group that makes decisions together, makes them together as a group, not alone.

Two birds making decision A = Group government

One bird making decision A = self government

One bird making decision A + One bird making decision A = Two birds making decision A = Group government.

It is logically impossible to have an anarchy, and be a group at the same time.

An alliance may not agree on everything, but as an allied group they agree on enough to be a group, agreeing on atleast 2/3 of the decisions they make, having similar interests, and making decisions that uphold those interests: Acting as a group in common thought, making decisions as a group.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Please don't turn this into another everybody vs. Elenai thread - that's exactly where the Legalize Weed thread went. Remember this is a debate, not a blood sport.

 

[RiotZ]

its almost logically impossible but this is my final post because i no longer drag things out
@Wherewolf im on nobody's side

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Nah Riotz I wasn't pointing at you, but other people tend to bring out the big walls of text examining and "disproving" everything Elenai says. I'm just saying that the point here is to state your opinion and support it through evidence, focusing on simply disproving everything one person says turns a thread into a flame fest. I'm not saying you should stop arguing, I'm just saying don't focus everything on trying to make a single person look completely wrong.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Elenai, your view of anarchy is too narrow. It's true that there's nothing to stop individuals from acting out, but there is nothing to stop other individuals from restraining persons that are out of line. When people learn to see past their noses (which may or may not ever happen), they will learn that it is in their own best interest to act in the interest of the community.

 

[Hakeem]

Under a dictatorship, there would only be a fraction of that amount of painfully selfish bastards.

Why?

I would attack your argument, but I would have to assume what your argument is.

The sad truth is that most of our development is grounded in warfare and superiority.

If anarchy is as violent as everyone is told to think it is, then it would be developing quickly. Also, with no patent laws to monopolize things, every researcher has access to the bleeding edge.

If people don't feel the need for more, they will not make more.

People will always want more better faster easier.

Job is a raider.

This means he is constantly on the move. As soon as he shows up in town, he is an enemy to the entire town. Raiders are nothing new to them in an anarchy. Any single person is liable to shoot him. Any two people are liable to shoot him. The whole town is liable to shoot him. How he'll win against the whole town is beyond me unless he can outgun them.

No law, so it technically isn't stealing now is it?

Ownership doesn't exist because law does. Take just about any species in nature. They have territory and things they own without writing down a law or coming to a consensus. Basically, I own it because I say I do, and most of the time, nobody is going to give me shit for it. When somebody takes something I own without my permission, I'm going to call them a thief.

Now since there is no law, rape does not exist, its just passing on your genes afterall, and doing what nature tells you.

She considers is rape. No amount of words of lack thereof are going to change the fact that she didn't want it, if she didn't want it.

Job represents the criminal element that already exists in Governed society, now let loose to be free in his work without Law to hinder him.

The law didn't hinder him in the first place. Ask any criminal. They wont tell you the law itself is what gives them pause: It's the cops. Well, that and that you don't rob an occupied house any more than you'd try to take the stereo out of a car that the owner is sitting in.

Most crime (pending me actually researching for a statistic) is done because nobody is watching. Most criminals don't have the guts, and most people in general, to confront people upfront to do things they don't want done to them.

I'd say the law against murder makes people think twice before pulling the trigger.

I'd say that the fact that nobody likes murder makes people think twice before pulling the trigger. Society is never kind to murders.

I'd rather a possible criminal be afraid to hurt me and thus not do anything, rather than be confident and go through with his plan.

He's not confident just because there is no law saying you don't want to hurt. He still knows that what he's doing is a dangerous thing: People fight back. People are dangerous, possibly the most dangerous. (Game.)

Blind, deaf, dumb.

This describes the average citizen in a government. Most people neglect taking the law or protecting themselves into their own hands when they think there somebody else doing it for them.

Do you think the citizens of an anarchy can afford to not be on their toes? Would you?

Simply put, anarchy provides no safety, no justice.

Except that of the self-government, of course. I think everyone protecting themselves and providing their own justice is a very concrete way to do things. Outsourcing your basic needs is as stupid an idea as you can get, in my perfectly honest opinion.

Dictatorships can indeed be replaced with better governments: atleast it is possible.

I would say the opposite. Given sufficient dictatorship to control the entire world, for example, you could control every aspect of the lives of the citizens to the extent that no resistance to destroy the government can ever be realized. We're talking perfect control here. If you're caught with a computer that doesn't have the dictatorchip installed: That's it. Why would you ever need to hide something from the lovable and fair dictator?

Anarchy, at least, will result in people making "governments" to better protect themselves.

You cannot join forces without creating either a democratic system, or a pecking order.

Yes you can. Ever heard of USENET? Torrents maybe? Peer-to-peer in general? If everyone agreed on everything, whence comes the need for government? It's only that people disagree that government is considered necessary.

Anarchy is self-government alone, groups are impossible by its very definition.

I define anarchy as the lacking of a government. You can have families, friends, coworkers, neighborhoods, cities, and I guess I draw the line at states. Maybe we have states as a way of having addresses, but those states wouldn't have any government or anything: They'd truly be partitions of land for identification purposes.

I can live in a family, have friends, coworkers, and neighbors, without any of them writing down something and telling me a I have to follow it. I don't need crap like that more than anyone else does. I will live my life the way I want, and if anybody wants to interfere, they ought to have a damn good reason to do so. Any reason other than, "Because we care about you," is a load or crap that I don't need, and would be much happier without.

Anarchy: No government.
Government: An entity that makes law.
Law: Rules that either:

• Everybody agrees on: Useless.
• Serve one party at the expense of another: Corruption.

If you define anarchy different, I don't care. If you define government different, I don't care. When what you call government fits my definition, then I subscribe to my definition of anarchy. If you want to define law differently, I'll be happy to tell you why it is:

• Useless.
• Corrupt.
• (Not a real definition of law. <_<)

 

[redscores]

Marshmellows!

(Senseless discussion is senseless, to make that clearer: anarchy will NEVER happen, and dictatorship is bad....)

 

[grato]

Since there was only a single (in numbers: 1!) dictator in the whole history of humanity who voluntarily ended his reign (Sulla, 2 years before his death) I'd rather choose anarchy than having my live dictated by someone I don't know, for the rest of my life. Sure, it'd be hard, without the presence of security forces, since people tend to make profit of such situations but I'd rather be free and endangered than secure and oppressed.

 

[HINDYhat]

Why?

I would attack your argument, but I would have to assume what your argument is.

The painfully selfish bastards would be those who have high hierarchical standing. The rest of the people would fend for themselves while still trying to obey the law, for fear of getting raped by the dictatorship.

In an anarchy however, everyone fends for themselves with no law at all (unless you believe morality is enough to convince people not to do "bad" things). So you get a much larger concentration of selfish bastards, but I wouldn't blame them: in horrible conditions, anyone would prefer to take care of themselves instead of catering to the needs of others (that includes security, food, etc).

 

[grato]

After I thought about it, I wouldn't choose Anarchy as well, since Anarchy (in most cases) leads to Dictatorship.

 

[Deleted member 157129]

After I thought about it, I wouldn't choose Anarchy as well, since Anarchy (in most cases) leads to Dictatorship.

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

 

[Elenai]

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.

I cite my birds example, that proves it.

You stated that it is 'cops' whom criminals fear, well...cops enforce the law, without the law they would have nothing to enforce, and thus would not be feared.

Anarchy is selfish entirely: Self-government, it is the most primitive form (most basic) instinct in animal government, it is the government of the loner. It is anti-herd, anti-pack. It cannot exist to serve others for very long, inevitably it must begin making decision A with the group, or else lead them, or else leave them.

IE: Become part of the herd, or leave it entirely to maintain self-government.

As for morality: "Rape/Theft", in the purely secular system I am using for this example does not exist, Law alone determines pan-morality. Morality in this system is relative you see, to the victim it is a tragedy, but rape and theft to Job are merely the natural spoils of victory, as seen by the animal kingdom:

"If you want something you must take it by force."

It doesn't matter what Rob thinks, or believes...he's dead, and there is no law, or reason that forbids Job from killing him for bread: Its just survival.

It doesn't matter what Dob thinks, he's dead as well, he was Sarina's mate, and lost her when "their antlers entangled", so to speak. There is no law or reason that forbids Job from killing Dob for his mate: Its just survival.

It doesn't matter what Sarina thinks, she's merely the mate, and means to pass on Job's genes, and the object of his natural appetite for sex, as far as his view of her is, and there is nothing to tell him he should think otherwise, there is no such thing as 'equality' in this world, there is a complete absence of a sense of equality where there is no law, or moral guide that states or determines it: To him, its just nature's hormones acting up.

It doesn't matter what the daughter thinks, or Tamo, there is no moral guide, nor any law that prevents it, or punishes it, there is nothing that says "NO" with authority, morality is relative, and perfectly useless here, since an outside absolute truth (An Alethian Nature as I call it) does not exist in this system. Law alone provides moral foundation in this purely secular system, but there is not government, moral, philosophical, or not, to provide it. 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.

The daugther and Tamo, Rob, Dob, Sarina, they have no justice, none. And will never get it in truth. Without law, justice does not exist either. Without a government law does not exist.

This is why anarchy is not viable Hakeem. In a group, or otherwise.

You can't avenge yourself if you are dead, and 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.

In all honesty, I can only determine that Anarchy is impossible. And thus: cannot choose it.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

I was pretty sure that cavemen had anarchic societies, and we evolved alright...

 

[Elenai]

Cavemen had tribal societies actually, or at their more primitive forms, they would have most likely had the same government as gorilla groups. Alpha male government, is still government.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Well what is Dictatorship but anarchy for a single person, just with a lot more power.
-In anarchy everyone isn't governed and free to do as they please, though this leads to obvious chaos.
-In a dictatorship, everyone is governed EXCEPT for a single person - basically it's like a personal anarchy. The difference here being that when that single person wants to do as he pleases he can force it onto other people much more easily.

Also with Dictatorship comes rebellion, with rebellion comes anarchy. I would say anarchy and dictatorship complete a cycle.