1
   

What Is Your Problem With Anarchy?

 
 
nicodemus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 09:05 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
tell me, how do you intend for anyone to attain wealth without education, or are only the ones with wealth going to be able to achieve it. Even to me thats cruel, it would be the middle ages all over again. So if you want 10 percent of the population to be literate, by all means topple the government and all of its institutions, you might as well destroy the schools, take a pickaxe to the roads and any levies or dykes that keep some of the largest cities in the world from mirroring venice
nicodemus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 09:09 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
so while i may be minorly held back by my government, that same government keeps kids in schools and out of sweatshops, look at sudan and other third world nations, the fastest growing occupation there is prostitution, while the literacy rate is abysmal. Even a state like north korea is preferable to that, which is what you would damn the world to. It doesnt matter how much you want or are able, relying solely on private schools to teach, private contracters to maintain a cheap infrastructure and private laws to govern is NEVER a good idea, if you dont believe me, simply look at the news from around the world
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 06:25 am
@nicodemus,
nicodemus wrote:
tell me, how do you intend for anyone to attain wealth without education, or are only the ones with wealth going to be able to achieve it. Even to me thats cruel, it would be the middle ages all over again. So if you want 10 percent of the population to be literate, by all means topple the government and all of its institutions, you might as well destroy the schools, take a pickaxe to the roads and any levies or dykes that keep some of the largest cities in the world from mirroring venice


Anarchy does not come about with the fall of the public sector but with the rise of the private sector.

You must think education to be an impossible mess if you think this institutionalized robot mill we call an education system is the best we can do.
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 06:33 am
@nicodemus,
nicodemus wrote:
so while i may be minorly held back by my government, that same government keeps kids in schools and out of sweatshops, look at sudan and other third world nations, the fastest growing occupation there is prostitution, while the literacy rate is abysmal. Even a state like north korea is preferable to that, which is what you would damn the world to. It doesnt matter how much you want or are able, relying solely on private schools to teach, private contracters to maintain a cheap infrastructure and private laws to govern is NEVER a good idea, if you dont believe me, simply look at the news from around the world


You mean the REPUBLIC of Sudan?

These third world countries are governed by oppressive states.

Take the Somalian example. While not a perfect example of anarchy, and while rooted in devastation and violence, the near-anarchy there resulted in greater wealth and less wealth distribution gap than Western African states.
0 Replies
 
Icon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 10:54 am
@nicodemus,
nicodemus wrote:
It doesnt matter how much you want or are able, relying solely on private schools to teach, private contracters to maintain a cheap infrastructure and private laws to govern is NEVER a good idea, if you dont believe me, simply look at the news from around the world


Funny, I'm not aware of any globally recognized anarchistic nations.... Oh... that's right... there aren't any. There ARE however, many oppressive governments which you have mentioned (you know... the exact opposite of what we are talking about). To say that the news around the world represents what would happen in anarchy is not only ignorant to the anarchist ideals but also just absurd. There is no anarchy in the world today. None. Where governments fail to lead, religious bigotry and hierarchies take their place. That is still no anarchy. No ruler or ruling class. None. The abolishion of laws, controls, limits, and constraints.

I will only say this one more time as it has not sunk in the other 12 times I have mentioned it in this thread. Pay very close attention to this next statement.


You cannot compare anything in the modern world with anarchy because there is nothing like it anywhere.




To make any sort of comparison to the current government states is an admission of ignorance to the ideas presented in this thread.

xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 04:56 am
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
Funny, I'm not aware of any globally recognized anarchistic nations.... Oh... that's right... there aren't any. There ARE however, many oppressive governments which you have mentioned (you know... the exact opposite of what we are talking about). To say that the news around the world represents what would happen in anarchy is not only ignorant to the anarchist ideals but also just absurd. There is no anarchy in the world today. None. Where governments fail to lead, religious bigotry and hierarchies take their place. That is still no anarchy. No ruler or ruling class. None. The abolishion of laws, controls, limits, and constraints.

I will only say this one more time as it has not sunk in the other 12 times I have mentioned it in this thread. Pay very close attention to this next statement.


You cannot compare anything in the modern world with anarchy because there is nothing like it anywhere.




To make any sort of comparison to the current government states is an admission of ignorance to the ideas presented in this thread.

So why are you so certain of its success ? we have seen it in history which you fail to recognise and i dont like its history..So you have not convinced me of its value for those who are not strong enough for its rat eat rat values..
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 06:29 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
So why are you so certain of its success ? we have seen it in history which you fail to recognise and i dont like its history..So you have not convinced me of its value for those who are not strong enough for its rat eat rat values..


For God's sake, anarchy doesn't possess values, only people possess values. Anarchy is an attempt at a system that allows men as individuals and as a whole to satisfy these values, therefore, whatever form society takes on would not represent the values of the anarchist, but the values of the individuals who form the society.

So anarchy would only be a rat-eat-rat society if people indeed had no empathy or desire to help their fellow man. Of course all of science and moral studies points to an innate desire in man to help others.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 07:03 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
For God's sake, anarchy doesn't possess values, only people possess values. Anarchy is an attempt at a system that allows men as individuals and as a whole to satisfy these values, therefore, whatever form society takes on would not represent the values of the anarchist, but the values of the individuals who form the society.

So anarchy would only be a rat-eat-rat society if people indeed had no empathy or desire to help their fellow man. Of course all of science and moral studies points to an innate desire in man to help others.
If society consisted of well meaning souls we would have no need of rules or government it would be a natural development but you cant impose or suggest this utopia till humanity as a whole is better than the system it requires.
Icon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 09:02 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
If society consisted of well meaning souls we would have no need of rules or government it would be a natural development but you cant impose or suggest this utopia till humanity as a whole is better than the system it requires.

So tell me something, if the system is causing the problem, how do you suppose we should rise above it?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 09:14 am
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
So tell me something, if the system is causing the problem, how do you suppose we should rise above it?
At the moment fine tuning of the nasty bits and realise that democracy is not a gift its a freedom fought for and still needs attention.I hope that ever time some leader tells us he will change the status quo he or her means it..but i forget they are humans..We have progressed and when man becomes void of his own personal needs and more for his neighbour we will get the society we crave for and government and laws will be redundant..I should say man is my problem not your anarchy..Heaven is for angels..
Icon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 09:24 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
At the moment fine tuning of the nasty bits and realise that democracy is not a gift its a freedom fought for and still needs attention.I hope that ever time some leader tells us he will change the status quo he or her means it..but i forget they are humans..We have progressed and when man becomes void of his own personal needs and more for his neighbour we will get the society we crave for and government and laws will be redundant..I should say man is my problem not your anarchy..Heaven is for angels..

So the system is the problem thus the only way to over come it is to strengthen it until we don't need it anymore???

Forgive me for not understanding your logic.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 09:42 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
If society consisted of well meaning souls we would have no need of rules or government it would be a natural development but you cant impose or suggest this utopia till humanity as a whole is better than the system it requires.


And if society consisted of ne'er do wells and sociopaths, an unchecked power structure seems like a ridiculously poor solution.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 09:57 am
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
So the system is the problem thus the only way to over come it is to strengthen it until we don't need it anymore???

Forgive me for not understanding your logic.
No system is perfect but at the moment democracy is the best we have or suits our purpose.How you do interpret my words into the system is the problem ?
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 09:59 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
And if society consisted of ne'er do wells and sociopaths, an unchecked power structure seems like a ridiculously poor solution.
So your system would be checked? by who? democracy is checked and rechecked thats what makes it a democracy..Your system with say a gangster whose going to check him?
Icon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 10:10 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
So your system would be checked? by who? democracy is checked and rechecked thats what makes it a democracy..Your system with say a gangster whose going to check him?

Your democracy is only checked by a select few. You still have absolutely 0 say in what changes are made. You have a few dozen making the choices for millions and yet you are afraid of a "gangster" making choices for a few. And the person who is going to check the gangster is whoever decides to do it. It could be you for all intensive purposes. There is nothing to stop you from doing so except for your own fear.

Your democracy is a shell of lies spoon fed to the people about the direction of the "over-all good". But good for who? Are you seeing any benefit from it? Are you now making millions off of the peoples money like your oh so holy politicians? You have to wonder, why do they always ride in nice cars, take 6 months of vacation a year and live in the most absurd houses while you have a small flat somewhere with a couple of things in fridge and you ride public transport. If they were REALLY concerned about you, you would be the one in the nice car and house.

The difference between a democracy and an anarchy is that a democracy makes your choices for you while an anarchy makes none.

Forgive me for being tired of having my choices spoon fed to me but I happen to enjoy being an anarchist in the modern world. Sure, I break a great many rule of my society. I do my best not to get caught. If I do get caughtthen I will suffer the consequences. Because of the rules I break and the way that I do things (as an anarchist in a "democracy") I have enjoyed great success not limited by the society with which you speak such high praise. If I were to accept the solutions of my democracy, I would be no more than a grad student with a piece of paper working at a burger joint.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 10:23 am
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
Your democracy is only checked by a select few. You still have absolutely 0 say in what changes are made. You have a few dozen making the choices for millions and yet you are afraid of a "gangster" making choices for a few. And the person who is going to check the gangster is whoever decides to do it. It could be you for all intensive purposes. There is nothing to stop you from doing so except for your own fear.

Your democracy is a shell of lies spoon fed to the people about the direction of the "over-all good". But good for who? Are you seeing any benefit from it? Are you now making millions off of the peoples money like your oh so holy politicians? You have to wonder, why do they always ride in nice cars, take 6 months of vacation a year and live in the most absurd houses while you have a small flat somewhere with a couple of things in fridge and you ride public transport. If they were REALLY concerned about you, you would be the one in the nice car and house.

The difference between a democracy and an anarchy is that a democracy makes your choices for you while an anarchy makes none.

Forgive me for being tired of having my choices spoon fed to me but I happen to enjoy being an anarchist in the modern world. Sure, I break a great many rule of my society. I do my best not to get caught. If I do get caughtthen I will suffer the consequences. Because of the rules I break and the way that I do things (as an anarchist in a "democracy") I have enjoyed great success not limited by the society with which you speak such high praise. If I were to accept the solutions of my democracy, I would be no more than a grad student with a piece of paper working at a burger joint.
So there are nothing i can do in a democracy to change the future course of my country ? how defeatist that is . There are so many ways including free speech , demonstrations even revolt. The minorities to can have large influences, for you to deny this makes the whole debate bizarre.The gangster is not above the law and eventually will suffer, in your anarchy he will turn into a king. I dont intend carrying a gun to shoot the local hood because there is no police to control his ambitions. Sorry i dont think you have convinced anyone of the benefits of anarchy..
0 Replies
 
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 10:39 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

--Thomas Jefferson


"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

--Benjamin Franklin
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 10:48 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
The U.S. Democracy is what John Stuart Mill would call a tyranny of the majority. With only two viable parties a tyranny of the majority is an intrinsic feature. The tyranny is sanctioned by one party receiving more votes than the other. Little can be done to check the power held by the majority, because they would never vote to check their own power. In theory, the executive, legislative, and judicial branches were supposed to check the power of one another, but with partisan politics there is no incentive to limit your party's governing capabilities.
Icon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 10:49 am
@Pangloss,
Pangloss wrote:
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

--Thomas Jefferson


"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

--Benjamin Franklin

Amazing how the inventors of modern democracy saw this to be true.

It is also interesting to me how the differences in location and culture effect the decision of the person.

I live in Texas. I own 23 fire arms of my own choosing and have a license to carry and defend. I have 4 different guns that I carry with me everywhere. I have never had to fire a shot but have used them to resolve situations. It is amazing how rational someone can be when they try to mug you with a knife and you pull out a large gun.
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 11:42 am
@Icon,
Icon;44293 wrote:
I live in Texas. I own 23 fire arms of my own choosing and have a license to carry and defend. I have 4 different guns that I carry with me everywhere. I have never had to fire a shot but have used them to resolve situations. It is amazing how rational someone can be when they try to mug you with a knife and you pull out a large gun.


This seems a bit excessive, but is certainly preferable to relying on police who won't be there when you need them (and usually are there when you don't need them).

A personal right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment is the most important right guaranteed us by the constitution (as it should be); without it, all other "rights" are lost. The founding fathers recognized this, and thankfully so did the supreme court judges in the recent DC handgun case.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 01:40:18