I have never shot another living thing. I have never had to (thankfully). I have been shot myself though. In the back by a drug dealer who had a gun and had stolen my gf by getting her hooked on meth. It was a rather unpleasant experience and a valuable one.
Every argument you have come up with for democracy is the same argument we have for anarchy. It is the people who give it the power. Anarchy is just the next step of giving power to the people. Anarchy gives the people absolute power. The only reason it would not work is if a person were incapable of governing him/her self. If that were the case then eventually they would interfere with the wrong person and get themselves killed or worse.
Without government, there is no war.
Without government, there is no tax.
Without government, there is no limit.
Without government, there is no segregation.
With government, there is no freedom.
Without government we have tribal battles, we have extortion ,there are safeguards for the vunerable,the minorties are protected,we have the freedom to choose..
Without government we have absolute freedom and control of our own destiny.
We are free to exploit, to attack our neighbours, its the law of the jungle..
I've never lived in a jungle.
I live in a subdivision where the law is "Don't hurt property values"
People don't step out of line because they need the support of those around them.
This thread has gotten to the point of ridiculous.
It is going no where. Absolutely no where.
Is that frustration at not being able to convince or is it that an attempt at degrading my opinion.I never thought the ideology behind anarchy was going to be going any where in the first place..It is not me that has reduced the debate to one line statements of believed facts.I will answer rhetoric but it does not advance the debate...
Youve never lived in an anarchy but you propose we should..People dont step out of line because they need the support of the people around them...is that so ? so this gang of thieves relies on the communities support do they..:perplexed:
It has nothing to do with your opinion. It has everything to do with the direction of the thread. You will not be convinced because you do not see the same things that we do. That is perfectly fine and certainly acceptable.
I am a all for anarchy because I know that, in my life at least, anarchy works and has worked on an individual level. You do not see it the same. Perhaps it has to do with the difference in location but I think it has more to do with experience. If I am guessing correctly, you were in the military which is going to forge a certain amount of duty and respect for your nation. I commend this. Still, it seems that our ideas of freedom are lost on you because of your lack of faith in mankind. Who knows, we may be overly opitmistic about humanity. Either way, we are making no more progress in this topic. When progress ends, so must the conversation until it is renewed with fresh blood.
You completely missed the point of my post.
You see, jungle rules come from living in the jungle not from living under anarchy, the rules of modern society come from living in modern society, not from democracy or any sort of government.
People in the jungle live a lifestyle of subsistence to a certain degree. Their lifestyle is dependent upon a small family group at the most. They hunt and live as a small group, and the survival of the group comes first, period. Duties among the group are wide and diverse, and one individual of the group may be quite able to maintain the same subsistence lifestyle outside of the group. The individuals social tendencies will lead him to seek acceptance amongst his small group, but the necessity of such social organization is not immediate.
We contrast that with people living in a modern society.
Lifestyle in a modern society has progressed far past subsistence. We drive, we have plumbing, we have all of these "necessities" than those less "developed" of our ancestors and relatives. This has been done by growing as groups. Instead of having a wide variety of duties amongst a small group, the modern laborer has specialized his labor, gaining a great deal of expertise in one particular form of production. Instead of staking out an individual claim to resource, modern society has allotted large contingent groupings of resource to be split up among collective groups. Instead of staking out individual sparse domiciles, they have built large shared developments. This is the way society and basic social evolution works. People gain over their individual limitations by both cooperating and expelling detractors.
That was the point of my subdivision statement: In the jungle it is a dog-eat-dog life because no one needs anyone else. In the subdivision, however, one person's property value is contingent on his neighbors' property values and vice versa. They get together and create a homeowner's association that works as a community to maintain high values. People work together because modern society and their very lifestyle depends on it.
And yes, any gang of thieves is dependent upon those they plunder from. Once their ability to plunder is cut off, they are no longer thieves and have to find some other method to support themselves. That's why our fearless protectors in the state love these fearful attitudes. The shepherd would be far less productive if the sheep were not so complacent about their fleece.
In the mean time those crooks have benefited from their thievery and the shepherd has no sheep no income and has no society to aid his loss..sorry i dont buy it one little bit..
I think you misinterpreted the roles of the characters in my tiny little allegory.
I got it but refused to accept your conceived wonderful humanity ..Have you never seen those experiments, plonking a few dozen comfortable humans on an island and seeing the control and rule scenarios develop..humanity is not ready ,im repeating myself, icon is right, we should leave the stage..
Yes we should, because that is an idiotic analogy with no relation to anything Icon and I have said.
We have gone all these pages without even framing the issue.
So i make idiotic analogies and you wonderful anarchists speak with the clarity of saints..nice way to end a debate..because thats what it is for me when abuse becomes the only refuge of a lost cause.
Ok guys... If this continues, I am going to have the thread closed.
If we can not be civil about this, we will not discuss it at all. The simple fact of the matter is that Anarchy is not a concept which appeals to everyone. I have seen both sides of the argument and have realized why we are not going to ever convince you Xris.
You have grown up in a world where you see mankind as natural oppurtunists. They will cheat, steal, stab you in the back and take any under-handed action possible to get ahead. Because of this, you fear for those who cannot defend themselves as well as others. Those who have a mental or physical definciency.
Mr. FtP on the other hand, sees mankind as I do. Inherently good. We have experienced that mankind does not take the worst possible action until they feel that it is their last resort. In a world free from limitations, we feel that that resort would be much farther away than in the current society.
Regardless of whether Xris is a pessimist or I am an optimist, the fact is that this discussion is a lot like the other discussions on god in this forum. We have no proof either way and have no way to truly theorize. We say that anarchy has never been and then turn around and use references which validate our points only to discredit others. It is not fair.
This is why I am saying that I, for one, choose to live in a mostly anarchistic state myself. It is something that I have been doing for a good amount of time and something that works for me. I urge everyone to try it. If you would like the best example of functional anarchy that I have ever read then you might want to read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein.
I know it is a a Fiction book but stick with me on this one. Read it and you'll see what I mean. Interestingly enough, Xris will appreciate how it ends in relation to his argument.