Your Political Allignment

[HorizonTal]

Anarchy does not mean no structure, it means that structure is not provided by a higher authority.

please explain this.

Also, that poor craftsman's buddies would probably gang up to punish the rich person.

Nope, if they make a gang of 10 craftmen, the rich guy pays 20 mercenaries. Craftmen know it and don't even try to revolt.
I know that if thousands of craftmen try to revolt they would have success, but the rich guy could kill many people before he is defeated. Again people know it and say "let's just don't think about it, he killed a man, but opposing against him would cause more death"
It's called omertà and it's why Mafia will never be defeated, for example. Unless there is a VERY strong power which tries to stop crime.
In the thirties mafia arrived for the first time in the United States, because in Italy they couldn't "work" because of Cesare Mori, a police officer of Mussolini. We had a very strong State which could prevent crime quite well, expecially in this case. (BUT life in our country sucked because many people have been killed by the State itself being called "Subversives" and many jews have been sent to Germany to be slained. I know Mussolini was a prick, don't misunderstand me!)

 

[Hakeem]

I know that if thousands of craftmen try to revolt they would have success, but the rich guy could kill many people before he is defeated.

Mercenaries are not loyal, they see that the rich guy pissed off the world, they're not gonna put themselves between them and him.

It's called omertà and it's why Mafia will never be defeated, for example. Unless there is a VERY strong power which tries to stop crime.

Why can't there be one in an anarchy? There would be, humans instinctively try to help each other, we evolved that way.

But ideally, the people of the anarchy know that any group corrupts, and you are not the person at the top. No mafia, no "good" force against the mafia.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

please explain this.

There is going to be structure, such as cities and towns, police and hospitals, perhaps city councils, but that structure is going to be provided by the people as a whole, instead of by the government.

 

[Masiah]

Incredible! I agree with you Ephy.

 

[brad.dude03]

I changed the title to correct your typo and to better reflect the contents of the thread.

 

[annoying]

Well, are you guys really considering ANARCHY? You can't be serious. Whoever can make what the fuck he wants, and only other people would stop him. The rich guy is a good example. But there are many rich guys, and they will rival each other for power until everyone but one is broke, and then he rules the world. Is that anarchy? No, that is dictature, and that's not what we wanted, huh? True anarchy would maybe be somewhat good, but it is not achievable, because people want more. That is, by the way, why communism doesn't work, like people have already said in this thread.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Well, are you guys really considering ANARCHY? You can't be serious. Whoever can make what the fuck he wants, and only other people would stop him. The rich guy is a good example. But there are many rich guys, and they will rival each other for power until everyone but one is broke, and then he rules the world. Is that anarchy? No, that is dictature, and that's not what we wanted, huh? True anarchy would maybe be somewhat good, but it is not achievable, because people want more. That is, by the way, why communism doesn't work, like people have already said in this thread.

You seem to misunderstand the concept of "money." If all the money in the entire world is controlled by one person, then money is worth nothing. After all, what use is money if nobody uses it? You can't buy anything with it because nobody else can buy anything with it. Money is of no practical use, it is merely a medium through which things with a practical use are acquired. A situation such as yours would become to who could provide the most material wealth, which would hardly last nearly as long as you suppose it would. Yes, a fledgling anarchy would have its problems, but it would stabilize or collapse upon itself, leaving room for more trial and error in both cases.

The reason true anarchy is unachievable is because government is the status quo, and a status quo as large as the world can hardly be changed effectively, if at all. The mentality behind that status quo certainly will have a hard time shifting.

 

[Masiah]

Said in other words, we are too used to governments; we can't live without them...
That's one of the problems to which humanity has to find a solution: a full human being can't be dependent on anything that isn't himself or herself unless he or she really wants to be dependent of it.

 

[Hakeem]

The reason true anarchy is unachievable is because government is the status quo, and a status quo as large as the world can hardly be changed effectively, if at all. The mentality behind that status quo certainly will have a hard time shifting.

That's where the internet comes in.

Said in other words, we are too used to governments; we can't live without them...

We can live better without them, because there would be no war.
People don't wage war, leaders do.



I think we'll be debating anarchy a lot, because if it works, then all other political philosophies are then nullified.

 

[Arvedui]

People don't wage war, leaders do.

People have always and will always wage war. No matter how smart or evolved we think we are, we're still animals with instincts. Instincts kick in if we think that someone is going to threaten us.

Yes it just so happens that people have always been ruled by people that they believe are better than themselves, that's how nature sets animals up.

Look at lion prides. The most powerful male becomes the leader of the pride and they lead them. Look at apes. The alpha male of the group (I don't know if there's a specific word and I don't care enough to look) leads them to wherever he wills.

That's just how nature is set up. There's always going to be someone who will take charge of that specific race and lead them in the direction that they will.

And what happens in your Anarchy if someone does? Let them? Then you've allowed government. Kill them? Then you risk starting war, which you've already stated does not happen because of people, only leaders.

Anarchy fails. The end.

 

[Hakeem]

People have always and will always wage war. No matter how smart or evolved we think we are, we're still animals with instincts. Instincts kick in if we think that someone is going to threaten us.

And a large group of people would threaten us why? Because they are all somehow turned into bad people who are willing to kill? People evolved specifically to help each other out, not hurt each other. And look how well it worked?

Yes it just so happens that people have always been ruled by people that they believe are better than themselves, that's how nature sets animals up.

Look at lion prides. The most powerful male becomes the leader of the pride and they lead them. Look at apes. The alpha male of the group (I don't know if there's a specific word and I don't care enough to look) leads them to wherever he wills.

In nature it happens because the leader takes control, he literally fights his way to the top.

You think everybody likes their boss?

And what happens in your Anarchy if someone does? Let them? Then you've allowed government. Kill them? Then you risk starting war, which you've already stated does not happen because of people, only leaders.

Good luck setting up a government to a people who know they don't need it. We can just ignore him.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Looks like Naziism is winning.

 

[Arvedui]

And a large group of people would threaten us why? Because they are all somehow turned into bad people who are willing to kill? People evolved specifically to help each other out, not hurt each other. And look how well it worked?

I never said that a large group of people would threaten anyone. Yeah look how well it worked out, genocide here, genocide there.. I see your point.

In nature it happens because the leader takes control, he literally fights his way to the top.

Who said (s)he wouldn't? You just reiterated what I just said.

You think everybody likes their boss?

No they don't, but they still work for them, don't they?

Good luck setting up a government to a people who know they don't need it. We can just ignore him.

Ok, I'm glad that you don't need a government/leader and can just ignore it. What about people who do follow said leader. You cannot in all certainty say that everyone will not follow the person. A lot of people like being led, because then they don't have to make decisions. They have everything done for them.

I'm not saying everyone is like that, but some people are, and those are the people who follow leaders.

 

[Hakeem]

I never said that a large group of people would threaten anyone. Yeah look how well it worked out, genocide here, genocide there.. I see your point.

That reminds me, war costs money. Lots of money. You'd need to be a very rich guy to wage war in an anarchy. Either that or take donations to keep the war going. Donations, which would make the people donating a target.

Who said (s)he wouldn't? You just reiterated what I just said.

There is no implicit fight to be leader for humans.

No they don't, but they still work for them, don't they?

Yes, but this is not a valid metaphor for people accepting the government, a boss pays you, the government does not. You can work for someone else with ease compared to moving to another country to get a new government.

Ok, I'm glad that you don't need a government/leader and can just ignore it. What about people who do follow said leader. You cannot in all certainty say that everyone will not follow the person. A lot of people like being led, because then they don't have to make decisions. They have everything done for them.

I'm not saying everyone is like that, but some people are, and those are the people who follow leaders.

But why would they just follow some leader who is going to make a country, when anarchy works perfectly fine?

 

[Christers]

I'm a socialist. But since the only things on the poll where fascist, nazi, anarchist, communist and capitalist I voted for the National Communist thingy.



And I can't really see how anarchy could ever work in practice. And how is it "The thing that looks bad on paper but works in practice"?

How exactly would areas where people cannot get enough food and water and relies on those things from other places survive (like cities)? If anything would lead to fights/war then dwindling food and water is it. The strong would get the food, and the weak would die.

How can anyone want to go back to the "Might makes right" mentality? Unless you would benefit from that of course.

 

[Arvedui]

That reminds me, war costs money. Lots of money. You'd need to be a very rich guy to wage war in an anarchy. Either that or take donations to keep the war going. Donations, which would make the people donating a target.

Lol. You deny government but you then you raise up money. Money means nothing. You can wage a war without money if you really want to.

There is no implicit fight to be leader for humans.

Tell that to everyone who has fought to be the top of anything.

Yes, but this is not a valid metaphor for people accepting the government, a boss pays you, the government does not. You can work for someone else with ease compared to moving to another country to get a new government.

It was your metaphor, I was just proving you wrong. If you want a better use of metaphors, pick a better one next time

But why would they just follow some leader who is going to make a country, when anarchy works perfectly fine?

Did you read what I wrote? No, I don't think you did.

And I can't really see how anarchy could ever work in practice. And how is it "The thing that looks bad on paper but works in practice"?

How exactly would areas where people cannot get enough food and water and relies on those things from other places survive (like cities)? If anything would lead to fights/war then dwindling food and water is it. The strong would get the food, and the weak would die.

How can anyone want to go back to the "Might makes right" mentality? Unless you would benefit from that of course.

According to some people's theories *cough* people would help other people for the good of society. Those people are, in general, wrong.

 

[Hakeem]

And I can't really see how anarchy could ever work in practice. And how is it "The thing that looks bad on paper but works in practice"?

I was kidding. You often hear someone say that a political ideology "looks good on paper", but doesn't actually work. I'm saying that anarchy only looks bad on paper.

How exactly would areas where people cannot get enough food and water and relies on those things from other places survive (like cities)? If anything would lead to fights/war then dwindling food and water is it. The strong would get the food, and the weak would die.

People wouldn't live there if nobody was bringing them supplies. But why would people not bring them supplies? You seem to think that people would not care for anybody else at all in an anarchy, which is not true, see my next comment.

How can anyone want to go back to the "Might makes right" mentality? Unless you would benefit from that of course.

People do not stop being people in an anarchy. Or any other government for that matter.

Lol. You deny government but you then you raise up money.

When did I say that? I said that a war would take money, and I didn't say I supported that. I don't, in fact.

Money means nothing. You can wage a war without money if you really want to.

Leaders wage war against other leaders. People don't just get up one day and decide they want to kill another large group of people.

Tell that to everyone who has fought to be the top of anything.

Keyword: implicit.

It was your metaphor, I was just proving you wrong. If you want a better use of metaphors, pick a better one next time

Fall for my trap why don't you? You were the one saying people love a leader (government), and I showed you a very common leader that people don't like very much at all. You then said that they still work for the leaders in my metaphor, and I told you how that applies to the original concept. In fact, the government often takes money from you. The only reason people put up with bosses is because they have to (money). I think they put up with politicians because they don't realize that anarchy would not be as bad as they think.

I'd say people like to be in control of their destinies, and prefer to not have a leader.

Did you read what I wrote? No, I don't think you did.

I did, but it didn't answer my question, so I asked it again. You say people like leaders, I don't think that's even true, but for the sake of argument, let's say they do:
Why would they follow a political leader when anarchy works?
Give me a reason they would actually do this, because they sure wouldn't do it without a reason.

According to some people's theories *cough* people would help other people for the good of society. Those people are, in general, wrong.

Prove it.
Yeah, you heard me, prove that humanity is inherently bad.
With myself as evidence, you sure aren't going to convince me, and I think many people think the same, seeing as we evolved to help each other out. Notice how all other animals fend for themselves (catching their own foods and such), for the most part, sharing only in packs, while humans send food half way around the world to feed people in starving countries?

Also, if you really think humans are more bad than good, take it to this thread.

 

[Arvedui]

When did I say that? I said that a war would take money, and I didn't say I supported that. I don't, in fact.

Leaders wage war against other leaders. People don't just get up one day and decide they want to kill another large group of people.

Keyword: implicit.

Fall for my trap why don't you? You were the one saying people love a leader (government), and I showed you a very common leader that people don't like very much at all. You then said that they still work for the leaders in my metaphor, and I told you how that applies to the original concept. In fact, the government often takes money from you. The only reason people put up with bosses is because they have to (money). I think they put up with politicians because they don't realize that anarchy would not be as bad as they think.

I'd say people like to be in control of their destinies, and prefer to not have a leader.

I did, but it didn't answer my question, so I asked it again. You say people like leaders, I don't think that's even true, but for the sake of argument, let's say they do:
Why would they follow a political leader when anarchy works?
Give me a reason they would actually do this, because they sure as wouldn't do it without a reason.

Prove it.
Yeah, you heard me, prove that humanity is inherently bad.
With myself as evidence, you sure aren't going to convince me, and I think many people think the same, seeing as we evolved to help each other out. Notice how all other animals fend for themselves (catching their own foods and such), for the most part, sharing only in packs, while humans send food half way around the world to feed people in starving countries?

Also, if you really think humans are more bad than good, take it to this thread.

Blah blah blah. This has all been done and said before. This thread is nothing new. I'm too tired to quote everything. I'm done for tonight after this, I'm going to actually play wc3.. imagine that..

1.) Did I say that you support war? No. I pointed out that money is useless if you really want to wage war. Nothing more, nothing less. Calm down
2.) Oh I suppose that Hitler just killed 67% of the Jews in Europe because of their leaders. Or that in Rwanda that the Hutus killed the Tutis because of their leaders.. no it wasn't because they were different than themselves. It's not at all that people fear what they don't know.
3.) Fell for my trap it seems. Not ONCE did I say that I love governments or leaders. I said that some people do.
4.) Yes but by controlling their destinies, they then become leaders
5.) Of course you don't think that people like leaders because you're ridiculously blind to other people's points of view. I see your point of view, anarchy looks good on paper, like communism. People working for the common good of other people. In practice it doesn't and has never worked.
6.) Prove it? lol. Ok, I know someone that's a millionaire. He could choose to help people and give it money to charity. You know what he said when I asked him why he didn't? He said he didn't believe in charity and that if people wanted help that they should help themselves. I was honestly flabbergasted.
I don't care what you think of me, I don't care if you don't agree with me, but when you've seen as much poverty and depravity as me, then you can start to argue with me on the "good and evil" of humanity.

Just to let you know, I work in soup kitchens for the good of humanity, what do you do?

I honestly believe that people, in general, are good and kind hearted but there are those that would destroy and tear down everything in society just because they can. Unfortunately, throughout history it has been those people who have gained power more often than not. I.e. Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Stalin.

Please don't try to lecture me about humans, you will epically fail.

 

[Hakeem]

Fell for my trap it seems. Not ONCE did I say that I love governments or leaders. I said that some people do.

I didn't say you did, nor do you have to. I used a weak metaphor, and you tried to apply something to it, which did not translate back over to the original context.

Of course you don't think that people like leaders because you're ridiculously blind to other people's points of view.

See next comment.

I see your point of view, anarchy looks good on paper, like communism.

No, I'm saying anarchy looks very bad on paper. It's alleged fallacies are what make it easy to debate against, but further thought shows otherwise. Well, that's what I've seen so far. I came into this debate a weak anarchist, and the more I debate, the less problems I find with anarchy.

People working for the common good of other people. In practice it doesn't and has never worked.

There has never been a real communist government yet. Communism tries to force this "ideal" onto everyone, which is a bad idea. Anarchy just let's it happen.

Prove it? lol. Ok, I know someone that's a millionaire. He could choose to help people and give it money to charity. You know what he said when I asked him why he didn't? He said he didn't believe in charity and that if people wanted help that they should help themselves. I was honestly flabbergasted.

Why do you think he's slightly rich in the first place? Because he was revolutionary and made lots of money with ease? I'm willing to bet he made that money by being greedy. He's one of the people that gives your argument power. You've provided one person as an example. Now let me show mine.

It was the 4th of July yesterday and everyone was shooting off dangerous fireworks everywhere. Guess how many of them were maliciously aimed at another person? Few, if any. How many people was that? Hundreds? Thousands?

I don't care what you think of me, I don't care if you don't agree with me, but when you've seen as much poverty and depravity as me, then you can start to argue with me on the "good and evil" of humanity.

You know what I see when I look at the world? I see most people not actively killing each other.

Just to let you know, I work in soup kitchens for the good of humanity, what do you do?

Given my location, the most help I can do is educate people on the internet when they are willing to learn. The number one reason I debate is because it's a good way to learn. Never underestimate the power of an educated mind. Honestly, I'd say it's the greatest power in the universe.

Or did you want me to tell you my plans for the future?

I honestly believe that people, in general, are good and kind hearted but there are those that would destroy and tear down everything in society just because they can.

I agree with that.

Unfortunately, throughout history it has been those people who have gained power more often than not. I.e. Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Stalin.

Those are the kinds of people that generally seek power. All the more reason I see to not have positions of power in the first place.

Please don't try to lecture me about humans, you will epically fail.

I apologize, but I cannot comply with this request.

---

Feel free to quote anything in this post in this thread.

 

[Arvedui]

Bah, the person who hosts for me left battle.net for the night... I'm going to spam his cell phone's inbox

Those are the kinds of people that generally seek power. All the more reason I see to not have positions of power in the first place.

And it would never ever be possible for one of those people to rise up in anarchy?

If someone is charismatic enough they can get people to follow them. I don't care what form of government, or non-government (for this argument) you have.

I apologize, but I cannot comply with this request.

And that is why you fail


P.S. Don't try to mini-mod me. I'm trying to talk about why Anarchy fails, in a political thread. You keep trying to bring it to the evils of humanity. I'm done talking about that, as I have already made my point.

 

[Moontraveler]

Leaders wage war against other leaders. People don't just get up one day and decide they want to kill another large group of people.

You don't know what a gang is... Don't you Hakeem .

 

[Hakeem]

And it would never ever be possible for one of those people to rise up in anarchy?

If someone is charismatic enough they can get people to follow them. I don't care what form of government, or non-government (for this argument) you have.

It's easy to see people following someone when they are already in a government, but in an anarchy, why would they follow him, knowing that they can live perfectly fine without any kind of government.

Like I said, if anarchy works, all other political ideologies are nullified, as they are then proven completely unnecessary. Why would a large group of people follow someone to something they know is entirely unnecessary?

Okay, let's say someone does. Only the people following him would recognize his government, the rest of the people wouldn't care. How do you think we can go from governments all over the world to anarchy in the first place? The way I imagine it, after years of planning and educating on the internet, everyone in the world walks up to their government headquarters and says, "We the people of the anarchy revoke your power."

Maybe that's impractical, but it sure would be cool.

You keep trying to bring it to the evils of humanity.

I'm just replying to anything that might cause someone to think anarchy would not work. I have yet to see a reason why it wouldn't.

Somebody, anybody, if there is a big gaping flaw that I'm missing, show me.

You don't know what a gang is... Don't you Hakeem .

If you haven't read the whole thread, fine, let me then say this:

What government is 100% gang free?

 

[Arvedui]

Maybe that's impractical, but it sure would be cool.

Too tired to care about the rest of the post.. sorry. This conversation, well any conversation about Anarchy that we've had, has always gone to the point were both sides just need to agree to disagree.

I think that's fair.

And yes it is impractical, and yes it would be cool

 

[Teh_Ephy]

The problem is, the anarchy people are generally saying that it's would be a good idea if it were feasible to implement, and then the anti-anarchy people are generally saying that it won't be possible to implement. Two arguments for similar opposing points.

 

[Moontraveler]

If you haven't read the whole thread, fine, let me then say this:

What government is 100% gang free?

What does a gang have to do with the government?

 

[brad.dude03]

Please read the thread before asking stupid questions.

 

[Arvedui]

I do believe he was referring to the fact that gangs can and will exist despite there being a government or no.

I'm pretty sure MS13 or the Bloods really don't give a shit if there's a government or not.

 

[annoying]

The real point is: Anarchy may be good, if no one would ever do anything bad. But there are people who do bad things. There are bad people. And nothing but the good people could stop them in an anarchy. BUT, good people are probably scared to heck by bad people, so they probably end up doing nothing, and bad people do everything they want.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

You seem to be missing the point entirely. Governments do absolutely nothing to prevent both real gangs and wannabe urban gangstas.

 

[Hakeem]

The real point is: Anarchy may be good, if no one would ever do anything bad. But there are people who do bad things. There are bad people. And nothing but the good people could stop them in an anarchy. BUT, good people are probably scared to heck by bad people, so they probably end up doing nothing, and bad people do everything they want.

So good people only do good things because there are laws?

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

If the majority of the people do bad things, I suppose they would rule in an anarchy, but then again, morality was always interpreted by the people, so I guess you couldn't really say that they were, in fact, doing bad things, unless it's a couple hundred years later, and, while you're writing a history textbook, you decide to sprinkle in the word "unfortunately" into your sentences just to piss off the people who want absolute neutrality in their reading.

 

[Sheeva]

With communism, everybody is equal, and you wouldn't have so many stuck-up tards who think they are better than everyone else. Although you cant get as high pay as you could in countries like UK, everybody has a fair deal, and beggars have a chance to have success at life while UK beggars don't.

 

[brad.dude03]

Except it's fucking stupid. Why should *I* have to spend my entire life slaving away for everyone else? I don't want to be a slave to society. I want to live my own life.

There goes Communism out the window, straight from its roots.

 

[Sheeva]

Except it's fucking stupid. Why should *I* have to spend my entire life slaving away for everyone else? I don't want to be a slave to society. I want to live my own life.

There goes Communism out the window, straight from its roots.

I'm beaten thar, because thats all true, like what you see out of your eyes.
Its a good idea though, but in the end it just doesnt work out.

 

[brad.dude03]

I don't think it's a good idea at all though, because people are enslaved to work for everyone else. Freedom just goes right out the window. I don't think that's a good idea at all.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

brad.dude03, communism is a good idea if people are willing to work for others, but for people who want to work for themselves, it's slavery. Does that work for you?

The real point is: Anarchy may be good, if no one would ever do anything bad. But there are people who do bad things. There are bad people. And nothing but the good people could stop them in an anarchy. BUT, good people are probably scared to heck by bad people, so they probably end up doing nothing, and bad people do everything they want.

So, police officers, the armed forces, trained martial artists, Chuck Norris, heroic idiots, and brave people, who are generally not scared to hell by bad people, are all bad people because good people are scared of bad people? Sweet, I'm a trained martial artist and have delusions of being a heroic idiot, you people finally have to believe that I'm a bad person. >

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

brad.dude03, communism is a good idea if people are willing to work for others, but for people who want to work for themselves, it's slavery. Does that work for you?

It's not that they want to work for themselves; it's more like they want to choose who to work for. In my opinion, life without choice wouldn't really be life at all.

 

[Voidwalker]

It's not that they want to work for themselves; it's more like they want to choose who to work for. In my opinion, life without choice wouldn't really be life at all.

Plants don't have brains. Therefore, plants don't have choice. However, they're alive.

Regarding anarchy...
The problem with anarchy is that, since everyone is free, then someone somewhere is free of not agreeing with anarchy. And of course, he/she/it wouldn't be the only one that thinks that way, some other around the world would think the same. That would corrupt your vision of a perfect utopical stateless world and would present the threat of eventually destroying your anarchy by those who oppose it. In order to safeguard your anarchical society, you'd need of a group of enforcers that keep society free of those who seek to destroy anarchy. That special police would, then, be a group that excercises control over society in order to keep it anarchical. That would, however, destroy anarchy.

 

[Sabertooth]

Plants don't have brains. Therefore, plants don't have choice. However, they're alive.

. . . Yes but humans CAN choose, and taking that ability away is something I don't think anyone would want.

 

[Masiah]

Anarchy is not a way to improve humanity, it is the final goal that humanity can achieve: being ruled by themsels with laws based on human nature.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Plants don't have brains. Therefore, plants don't have choice. However, they're alive.

Plants don't "live" in the sense that they experience each new day, each new thing.

Regarding anarchy...
The problem with anarchy is that, since everyone is free, then someone somewhere is free of not agreeing with anarchy. And of course, he/she/it wouldn't be the only one that thinks that way, some other around the world would think the same. That would corrupt your vision of a perfect utopical stateless world and would present the threat of eventually destroying your anarchy by those who oppose it.

If you yourself said that something is a utopia, particularly one that is anarchy by nature, a few hundred people out of millions aren't going to be able to destabilise it in the slightest, especially if it has been proven to be a utopia.

In order to safeguard your anarchical society, you'd need of a group of enforcers that keep society free of those who seek to destroy anarchy. That special police would, then, be a group that excercises control over society in order to keep it anarchical. That would, however, destroy anarchy.

That group wouldn't be necessary for the reasons given in my last paragraph. Also, if it is anarchy, then people are free to do what they want. If they want to form a government for themselves, while that individual group is no longer a pure anarchy, they will hardly be a threat that will destabilise the anarchical society around them.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Plants don't have brains. Therefore, plants don't have choice. However, they're alive.

I'm not defining life. I'm defining life worth living. Hence the "opinion".

 

[Masiah]

Plants and animals (excluding humans) can be considered the most happy creatures on earth, they only live to achieve basic goals like eat, sleep, reproduce themselves, etc... and don't worry about anything else like threads like this. Some tropical fish are indeed the most happy creatures of them all: they only have a few seconds of memory, so they can swim in a small acuarium and never got bored; it's like discover new views everytime, because you don't remember seeing it before D:
*Envys the animals*

 

[Teh_Ephy]

I believe a few seconds is their attention span, not their actual memory.

 

[Masiah]

No, no, it's their actual memory: their brain is so small that memories are nearly inmediatly discarded to make space for the new information recolected by their senses.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

They did a test with goldfish, and sent them through a maze. 3 days later, the goldfish completed the maze faster. I'm fairly certain that it's more likely to be attention span than memory.

 

[DrazharLn]

Their memory is longer, test it yourself like so [PDF].
Sorry to prove you wrong

EDIT I took so long making this post Teh_Ephy got there before me.

 

[Masiah]

I never said it was a goldfish D: I said it was a tropical fish... When I remember the name (or visit the local acuarium) I will tell you the actual name. (Maybe even the latin title )

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Plants and animals (excluding humans) can be considered the most happy creatures on earth, they only live to achieve basic goals like eat, sleep, reproduce themselves, etc... and don't worry about anything else like threads like this. Some tropical fish are indeed the most happy creatures of them all: they only have a few seconds of memory, so they can swim in a small acuarium and never got bored; it's like discover new views everytime, because you don't remember seeing it before D:
*Envys the animals*

Happiness is not the same as contentment. Contentment is the absence of sadness, and by extension, happiness. If you open your eyes one morning and notice it's a bright, sunny, beautiful day, you still wouldn't be jumping up and down in giddy joy. You would be smiling, at most. If you are in a benevolent communist regime, or some kind of utopian society, you would be content, not happy. Which is okay, if you like boring stuff like that.

 

[Hakeem]

The problem with anarchy is that, since everyone is free, then someone somewhere is free of not agreeing with anarchy. And of course, he/she/it wouldn't be the only one that thinks that way, some other around the world would think the same. That would corrupt your vision of a perfect utopical stateless world and would present the threat of eventually destroying your anarchy by those who oppose it.

Why, why, why, why, why, would someone want a government when it is proven that governments are entirely superfluous?

Anarchy is not a way to improve humanity, it is the final goal that humanity can achieve: being ruled by themsels with laws based on human nature.

And what, exactly, do we have now?

Plants and animals (excluding humans) can be considered the most happy creatures on earth, they only live to achieve basic goals like eat, sleep, reproduce themselves, etc... and don't worry about anything else like threads like this. Some tropical fish are indeed the most happy creatures of them all: they only have a few seconds of memory, so they can swim in a small acuarium and never got bored; it's like discover new views everytime, because you don't remember seeing it before D:
*Envys the animals*

I have found more bliss in knowledge than a thousand ignoramuses.