3
   

What frightens you more, anarchy or abusive authority?

 
 
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 04:43 pm
@etherguant,
If you do get a kick out of Anarchy read these books.
Anarchy it seems is actually based in spirituality.
The Invisibles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
0 Replies
 
johannw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 05:00 pm
@LittleMathYou,
I think anarchy is generally confused with chaos. Most people see anarchy as that post-apocalyptic scenario (very Mad Max, like someone said before) but anarchy seems, to me, to be more about decentralization from a government that is generally detached from the population and focuses the "governing power" on the small, self governing communities where everyone is individually held accountable for their actions (negative or positive). Those who break the community's laws are punished or even exiled by the community. In many ways, anarchy seems to either resemble a kind of super-socialist utopia, where everyone makes their contribution to their community, and the community distributes the necessary living materials to its members, or it is more of a perfect free market system where trade and bartering is how you get the materials you need and no one regulates it...

Either way, you will probably still end up with someone that wants more than his neighbor, etc, etc, and I could see anarchy (whether it follows the free market trend or the socialist utopia trend) falling into a feudal system... (fall of the Roman Empire/Dark Ages, anyone?)
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 05:09 pm
@johannw,
Does anarchy have politics?

Do we need politics?
0 Replies
 
johannw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 05:18 pm
@LittleMathYou,
If you define politics as the process in which groups of people make decisions, I think anarchy does have politics, but on a very local and personal level. Small communities that would form if a centralized government didn't exist would have their small-town form of politics which would probably be a perfect, majority-rules democracy (assuming everyone in the community was considered equal).

And politics, as I defined it just now would be necessary for any community to function because a process for decision making needs to exist for that community to function.
0 Replies
 
etherguant
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 05:40 pm
@johannw,
johannw;154630 wrote:
Either way, you will probably still end up with someone that wants more than his neighbor, etc, etc, and I could see anarchy (whether it follows the free market trend or the socialist utopia trend) falling into a feudal system... (fall of the Roman Empire/Dark Ages, anyone?)


It's funny when people use examples of states failing when describing the possible failure of anarchy. I've heard that iceland was able to maintain a total privatized system longer than the lifespans of most empires.
johannw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 06:01 pm
@etherguant,
etherguant;154655 wrote:
It's funny when people use examples of states failing when describing the possible failure of anarchy. I've heard that iceland was able to maintain a total privatized system longer than the lifespans of most empires.



All I was saying is that the anarchy that replaced the Roman Empire after it fell was quickly replaced with fuedalism. That seems like a pretty logical way to go considering that some people are always yearning for power and control.

That's interesting that Iceland was able to do that... I'm wondering if you need a pretty well educated populace to be able to maintain a system like that? Or how else would you prevent the exploiters from taking control? Where did you read/hear that? I'd like to learn more about it!
etherguant
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2010 07:01 pm
@johannw,
johannw;154665 wrote:
All I was saying is that the anarchy that replaced the Roman Empire after it fell was quickly replaced with fuedalism.


I think you mean Anomie, not Anarchy.

johannw;154665 wrote:
That's interesting that Iceland was able to do that... I'm wondering if you need a pretty well educated populace to be able to maintain a system like that? Or how else would you prevent the exploiters from taking control? Where did you read/hear that? I'd like to learn more about it!


Ryan Faulk's Videos - Fringe Elements
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2010 09:57 am
@LittleMathYou,
I fear anarchy more than authority abuse.

Taken to extremes, both are quite daunting. And depending on what flavor of 'abuse' and to what extent of 'anarchy' we're talking about, one could easily be more palatable than the other.

I suppose what makes me answer this way - on a strictly superficial basis - is that where there is a_power abusing its authority, I know that enemy. Where there is no cooperative authority, there seems to be the distinct potential for virtually everyone being my enemy. In this way, its looked at as a question of practical mechanics and how many 'agents' we might fear.

Like I said; though, I'd need a more specific scenario to answer fully.

Thanks
0 Replies
 
johannw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2010 11:13 am
@LittleMathYou,
Quote:
I think you mean Anomie, not Anarchy.


That's totally true. I even talked about how often that mistake was made, so I retract that statement. My bad =)
Soul Brother
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 10:42 am
@johannw,
I AM A MAN, THEREFORE I AM GOVERNED BY NO MAN![/SIZE]) Man was born with a brain and free will FOR A REASON, so as to be able to care and fend for himself, conduce and be in control of his own motive and intent and have responsibility for his own conduct. WE ARE NOT ZOMBIES! although thats what they try to turn you into, you literally do not have to abide by their laws as they literally have NO authority what so ever over ANYONE, because they are simply other man like you and me, I would sacrifice myself today for people to realize this!! Any man who thinks he has the power to govern or have authority over anyone is simply fooling them selves, and the saddest part is they are succeeding at fooling others into believing so.

(ITS TIME TO WAKE UP!!)
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 11:12 am
@etherguant,
etherguant;154623 wrote:
Anarchy is not a bad system, It is a society without the initiation of force.
Problem is most people confuse Anarchy with Anomie.

Anarchy is not a system at all... Democracy is minimal government too, but there is still a form, and formality... There is always some kind of form even in the most informal of relationships...

The problem we have is that to have enterprise free of government the people must be constrained, held to their tasks, or to have their pockets picked... Free enterprise demands a slave people, so naturally, people want less of government, but that is what they suffer, because government should be their key to the virtues of freedom, but ours will not get monkey business off our backs...

It is for good that governments are formed... Where is the good for which ours was formed???... The virtues for which it was formed are clearly stated in the preamble of the constitution and no one considers them against the reality...We do not need no government, but a new government to achieve the just aims forgotten by the old government...
0 Replies
 
DAC
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 02:42 am
@LittleMathYou,
I think of anarchy like a field of wild grass with lots of diversity, ruthless and adaptive to suit the environment, as apposed to a neatly cut lawn which needs lots of maintenance and has been adapted to suit people.
Which one is better depends on if you are a piece of grass or a wildflower.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 04:24 am
@DAC,
DAC;174951 wrote:
I think of anarchy like a field of wild grass with lots of diversity, ruthless and adaptive to suit the environment, as apposed to a neatly cut lawn which needs lots of maintenance and has been adapted to suit people.
Which one is better depends on if you are a piece of grass or a wildflower.

I does seem to have its advantages... It is people who should be free and the conditions that govern them that if left ungoverned WILL govern them should be governed... We leave enterprise free and restrain people... It is ignorant since it presumes an advantage to business and property will prove a benefit to the whole people... Now that private wealth is becoming corporate wealth at an alarming rate, perhaps it is time to rethink the notion...
0 Replies
 
MoralPhilosopher23
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2012 06:39 am
@LittleMathYou,
Well first of all, I think that the word "anarchy" is completely misunderstood in our society today. Often when we think of anarchist, we envision people busting windows out of corporate buildings or setting cars on fire in the streets; riots also are a heavy claim. However, anarchy really just means absolute freedom so that can be good or bad depending on the situation.

I think the reason why there is so much crime in the world is because of outrageous laws and large corrupt governments.

I say anarchy is the way to go.

Cheers
0 Replies
 
kiuku
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2014 02:59 pm
@LittleMathYou,
Anarchy supporter: me. personally just me though, abusive authority. Because I feel like, I can handle myself, but I can't if everyone is a well knit gang. I feel like I can defend myself, especially if everyone is deciding on their own, because everyone does have morals until they form gangs. I couldn't handle a gang but I wouldn't involve myself though. Personal responsibility, I think, I am a Native American. Rarely do I give people a real excuse to hurt me, and honestly I think that's the only problem people have where I am concerned, an honest reason. lol. I feel that life is easily withered in authority systems, and shorter lives aren't necessarily bad, as long as there are human things in it, like purpose or love...

as long as she or he can't call a bunch of other people automatically, I can handle myself and be on my merry way.

Not to get into it too far, but the debate, or the problem in anarchy, is always The Theoretical Serial Killer, why the government has them I guess. Killing takes place between two people but what if there is some guy that just goes around killing people, then you have to team up. Then it is illegal.-mine only, the above. I think a lot of crime can occur just because the criminal knows he won't be killed, or probably won't; which is the only thing a woman can usually do by the way, unfortunately for authority systems, women in. It's a totally different world where women can use what I call "sneaky force" or lethal force. Ultimately that's a "woman's force."

Look I hate that they can call a bunch of people. I hate authority. Can I say I hate the police? Probably so. Because, like I said, they have power because they can call for backup. It's like, I saw you hiding there. If I saw him hiding there, I could have put an end to this a long time ago, in Anarchy or Revolution. Instead I have to take his illegal and suspicious behavior to court where he doesn't belong at all, anyway, in my opinion: when police break the law. Where does he belong, you know? Ok, that might be too much.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2014 03:15 pm
@LittleMathYou,
ABUSIVE AUTHORITY is more sinister.
Think of communism, liberalism and nazism; abhorent.
0 Replies
 
kiuku
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2014 03:16 pm
@kiuku,
that's all I had to say. It's inherent, not a learned position, an inherent, feeling. Truly Anarchy is my most basic position. So, maybe that's Native American!
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2014 11:08 pm
@kiuku,
kiuku wrote:
that's all I had to say. It's inherent, not a learned position, an inherent, feeling.
Truly Anarchy is my most basic position. So, maybe that's Native American!
I 'm almost kind of anarchistic.
I m a native American. I was born in New York.





David
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2014 01:32 am
@LittleMathYou,
LittleMathYou wrote:

What would make you feel more insecure, total anarchy or power abuse on the part of those "in charge" and are suppose to take protect society.

Its the difference between people running with guns in the street and cops who take you to prison (Or worse) for no real reason.


To paraphrase Nietzsche, there is no discernible difference between absolute determinism and absolute chaos. Which is preferable: local tyranny or global tyranny? Answer: neither.

Krumple wrote:
The only reason why capitalism is failing currently is due to government hands manipulating it. In a true free market businesses will regulate themselves because of competition. The government gets involved and destroys the ability for businesses to compete, leaving just one or two large corporations that gouge their customers. The inefficiency of the market currently is a government induced problem.

Free markets will be effected by the consumer. The consumer has all the power in a totally free market, because you have options. Having options businesses are forced to compete for your money. This means they have high incentive to keep you happy. But a single business with no competition doesn't care about you because they know you have no alternative. They can charge what ever they want and the quality can be low, and you have no choice.


Krumple - "mis-informed, Laissez faire Buddhist"

Krumple wrote:
I would much rather lose ma and pa businesses to corporations like Walmart than to have banks that prey on their own customers to legally steal their money by shifting around their funds so they over draft their accounts.

I would much rather have a walmart then a bank that tax payers have to bail out which in turn give million dollar bonuses to their upper level management


http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2014/04/17/walmarts-new-money-transfer-service-should-banks-western-union-and-moneygram-be-nervous/

poor Krumple -- "uninformed, mis-informed, un-aware, Laissez-faire Buddhist"


JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2014 01:47 pm
@Razzleg,
If the world were made up of only ubermenchen we would not need government (my definition of anarchy, the absence of government), but given that that is not (and probably never will be) the case we must live with our regulatory creation but constantly struggle to keep it in good (democratic) condition. The popular idea of anarchy is a macho romance.
 

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 © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 11:07:45