Page 17 of 74 FirstFirst ...
7
15
16
17
18
19
27
67
... LastLast
  1. #321
    The Undying Wildtree's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Iowa - Franconia
    Posts
    31,500
    One could write a wall of text, or simply 1 - 2 sentences....

    Human society NEEDS laws, because it simply doesn't function without them.
    It's human nature.

  2. #322
    Ideally, anarchy would be preferable to organized government.

    Realistically, it would not.

    The principle of anarchy relies on not giving one human power over another, but you're not going to convince hundreds of millions of people to work together. It's not possible. Anarchy can only work in small isolated communities. On a world stage, it's on a pipe dream that will never happen.

  3. #323
    I rather have freedom than security

    good post OP

  4. #324
    Scarab Lord xylophone's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Vehemence View Post
    I rather have freedom than security

    good post OP
    As would I, but it reaches a point where too much can be dangerous. In an anarchy where I had total and complete freedom I could kill you in your sleep with little fear of repercussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Lets say you have a two 3 inch lines. One is all red and the other is 48% red and 52% blue. Does that mean there's a 50-50 chance they're both red or is the second line matching the all red line by 48%?
    ^^^ Wells using an analogy

  5. #325
    Legendary! Jaxi's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Yogurt.
    Posts
    6,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Vehemence View Post
    I rather have freedom than security

    good post OP
    You would sacrifice ALL security for COMPLETE freedom?
    Quote Originally Posted by Imadraenei View Post
    You can find that unbiased view somewhere between Atlantis and that unicorn farm down the street, just off Interstate √(-1).

  6. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by JSG31494 View Post
    In what respect? I see words but no arguments!

    ---------- Post added 2012-04-13 at 12:10 AM ----------



    that's why at the bottom of the post, which you clearly did not read, I advocate anarchism through nonviolence, education, and will power. Please use your brain.
    there is a reason humans developed into organized society. Because it makes shit better.

    Anarchy, like communism and true socialism, is a doomed concept because inevitably someone with ambition will start to get ahead, rise above, gather follwers who ant to rely on someone else to make their decisions, and then you have a government.

    Look at a free market as an example. Everything starts out like anarchy would in a perfect world. lots of competition, loads of option for consumers and the companies have to raise quality and lower prices to keep customers. The problem is eventually more and more people only use one business and where once industry might have had all sorts of excellent quality and dozens of businesses, there is only 3 left and they offer mediocre service and stomp out new entrepreneurs, even worse, they might form a trust and merge into one entity, giving themselves a total monopoly, and the governing the market.

    Anarchy, like a true free market, is impossible to sustain.

  7. #327
    Quote Originally Posted by JSG31494 View Post
    Sip, Whole lotta non sense.
    Anarchists disregard the whole reason behind the existence of state.

    Imagine bank cashier. There is only 1 cashier and 50 people who want to get their money out. Now the logical method of everyone getting their money is forming a line.

    But what if there are 5 individuals who refuse to conform and they want to cut the line. You have two choices here. One is letting them cut the line, the second is using force (verbal or physical) to enforce order.

    The issue whit an Anarchy is the simple fact that unless you are willing to use force to defend your interests there will always be someone else willing to use force to make you do his bidding.

    Society gave birth to states and governament for the very reason of protecting the interests of everyone over the interests of a few. You could argue that feudal states where the rule of a few over many by force. In fact feudal societies existed not just to tax people into starvation but to protect the citizenry from agression. A farmer army will not stand a chance against an army of professional pillagers bent on destruction and theft. Additionaly states where formed to actualy reduce existing violence within society. One warlord would fight over bounty with a nother warlord. Eventually everyone would lose, trough the loss of life and the destruction. Now as soon as 2-3 warlords joined togheter assigned one leader they became the largest force, allowing them to defend their wealth, interests and subjects. On the long run allowing them to grow and prosper.

    Governament is a spontaneous creation of society that is seeking to create security. Over years this evolves and becomes more complex and the balance of power and interests shift and change but the essence remains the same. Governament exists to ensure the conformity of the few unrully to the greater interest of society.

    You would think private military forces whitout a state would not take advantage of their power to enforce their will upon others? Do you believe private courts that have no rigid structure and exist only to make profit would be more unbiased than state run ones, where there is atleast a minimum effort to safeguard against corruption?

    DO YOU HONESTLY THINK PEOPLE WOULD ACT CIVIL TO EACH OTHER AND THE STRONG WOULD NOT OPRESS AND ABUSE THE WEAK IN A LAWLESS SOCIETY?

    And about abolition of currency.

    Okey I am a biology teacher. I need a new pair of shoes. I go to the shoemaker. All I can offer him is some live chikens and carrots that I have been paid by my farmer student.

    But the problem is that shoemaker already has chikens and carrots because the farmer traded that to him to get a new pair of shoes. Now I have no shoes.

    And the shoemaker has a bunch of chikens but unlucky for him the leather tanner already got some chickens from the tailor, so he has nothing to make shoes out of and nothing valueable to trade anymore.

    This is the main reason why a barter economy cannot work. This is why we invented money.

    I teach the farmer biology, he gives me money that I can exchange for anything that I might need, and that money can exchanged for anything else by the person from whom I just purchased something.

    Etc etc etc.

    The list why Anarchy is against essential human nature is almost never ending. Governament is a tried and proved method of organizing human societies for thousands and thousands of years. We tweak it, adapt it, but it is essentialy the only system that has worked out for us. And might I say it worked out for us very well.

    In about 12000 years (since we began creating more complex social structures) our population has grown from a few million to 7 billion. We are more prosperous then ever before.

    And if you really want to see anarchy in action you dont have to look too far. Failed states like Somalia. Or states with weak governaments across Africa, living in constant violence, under the rule of mad men, where often one faction is just as bad as the alternative etc. Or even near the US in Mexico where without the (very corrupt and inefficient) governament the streets would be completly ruled by drug cartells and violent criminals.

    The compare those nations to nations with strong governaments like, France, Germany, UK, USA, (The entire EU), China, Japan. I think the pattern there is obivious, when it comes to the terms of security and prosperity. Even in places like Cuba or Venezuela where the governaments have a questionable economic performance and a pretty nasty human rights record, the strong governaments provide their citizens with relative health and prosperity (peace and food on the table).

  8. #328
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Vehemence View Post
    I rather have freedom than security

    good post OP
    And your local shop would feel free to charge you £10 for a loaf of bread...and your neighbour would feel free to steal your TV.

    It's not enough to just think about what *you* would prefer...you have to ask yourself "and if everybody else was free too".

    What if the town you lived in paid its police 5 an hour...but the town just to the north paid 50. Would your town have any police? If it *did * have police - how many would be public servants and how many would be bullies?

  9. #329
    Scarab Lord xylophone's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    Giant post.
    You dun be usin dat common sense, folks 'round here don't take kindly to that sorta fancy pants talk, why don't ye skedaddle?
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Lets say you have a two 3 inch lines. One is all red and the other is 48% red and 52% blue. Does that mean there's a 50-50 chance they're both red or is the second line matching the all red line by 48%?
    ^^^ Wells using an analogy

  10. #330
    Quote Originally Posted by JSG31494 View Post
    Government is the initiation of force. Think about it. Try not paying your taxes. At first you'll let a letter or a phone call saying "Hey, you aren't paying! Pay up!" Next you get a notice to go to court. And after that, police will show up to your house to apprehend you. If you defend yourself, you get gunned down. Government breaks the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) by initiating force upon it's sheep (citizens). Now you're probably thinking that this is just some teenage pot head trying to rebel against the man. Well I assure you, I believe drugs are immoral as well, however, I do believe you have the right to use them as long as you're not breaking the NAP.

    Next you may say "Well! Without government, who will provide for the poor?" Government actually made the poor people poor, and if anyone did manage to become poor in a stateless society, charity would be provided. Who provides such charities you ask? towns would. Ostracism would be an effective tool. If you don't donate, you miss out on social relationships, don't get a sign on your lawn saying you donated etc. And even if this isn't perfect, is our current system any better?

    "Well, what happens if we're invaded?" Private defense organizations/defense insurance companies would be there! Let us say that the U.S. becomes a stateless society and Canada has a choice to invade us or Russia. Let's say for all intents and purposes they really hate our guts for ripping them off with Maple Syrup tariffs before the collapse of the state. They must get through private defense companies, mercenaries and every single citizen fighting to not be taxed, and enslaved by another government. If Canada invaded Russia, all they would have to do is break down the Russian military, get to Moscow and claim victory. Once this happens, the Russian people don't take up arms against Canadian oppression, they merely switched mafia heads. One leader lost to another leader, it would be no different than a forced election where many people died.

    "Oh, I've got you here! Medical care! How is this going to work?!" Well, the reason medical care is expensive now, is because of government intervention in the system, subsidies, medicare, medicaid, etc. If a doctor in a stateless society wants to charge $20 per patient, he is more than welcome to! If his next door neighbor wants to be a doctor and charge $15 per patient, he will simply get the majority of patients and drive the first doctor to either lower his rates or go out of business. "And what of surgery costs?" Same answer as before, surgeons will lower their rates as much as possible to where they still make a profit but get as many patients as possible. Health insurance will also be 100% privatized.

    "Currency! What will be the currency of a stateless society!?" It doesn't matter. You could trade gold, silver, rocks, spoons or even pens. Whatever the seller wants that buyer will offer in exchange for the product the customer wants.
    "Education is not receivable to most people without a government provided system!" Government has lowered education standards and does not actually teach you much. If you're older than 30 try telling me the integral of cotx. Try telling me the formula for resistance. If you were doing this math in high school, chances are, (unless you became a mathematician or a physicist) that you just regurgitated this information for the test and forgot it after. Real education advances would be made without the government.

    "Well what about courts! For crimes such as murder, theft, or fraud!" Privately run courts would exist, where the defendants and prosecutors would mutually agree to attend, so as to deter corruption. There could be 1 juror or 100, based on a voluntary or salary system. It may not be the absolute perfect system, but is our current one better? Just look at some of the corruption that is going on!

    So, those are the ways anarchism would benefit us, whereas the state not only does not benefit it, it hinders us, enslaves us and attacks us. I advocate an anarchist society, but I want to achieve it nonviolently. Using violence to achieve anarchy will not only fail, but it will just prop up warlords and dictators in an even worse society. Nonviolence, education, and will power are the only way to get rid of the state. I hope that one day we'll realize that we do not need a government to tell us what to do, what to think or what to feel.

    So, If you can come up with another argument that you think the state can solve better than anarchy, please, share it, and I'll post my response. If I have opened anyone's mind or even sparked an interest to anarchism, please search Freedomain Radio on Youtube or Google, and look for Stefan Molyneux, as he does a MUCH better job at explaining the ideal, stateless society! Thanks if you read this all the way through!
    lol, nope.

  11. #331
    Bloodsail Admiral Talokami's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    1,124
    Quote Originally Posted by xylophone View Post
    You dun be usin dat common sense, folks 'round here don't take kindly to that sorta fancy pants talk, why don't ye skedaddle?
    Welcome to my signature, kind sir!
    That fabric softener teddy bear...oooh I'm 'a hunt that little bitch down.

  12. #332
    I think most people will agree, a little anarchy is necessary to keep those in power in check, it's total anarchy that's a problem.

  13. #333
    If you want a government that works we basically need to switch to an Intellocracy or Communism as it is meant to be and not what greedy humans turned it into. Anarchy is not the answer unless you want mass genocide of the idiots and douche-bags in this country followed by thousands of people attempting to re-create an actual government.

    Personally I would be 100% for an Intellocracy where your social status and political sway depended on intelligence and not on how well you can sway the average dumb American to believe your empty promises. Being a good speaker does not always make you a good ruler, want a good example? Go look at King George VI. Or on the other end of the spectrum, look at Obama.

  14. #334
    Scarab Lord xylophone's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Bormes View Post
    I think most people will agree, a little anarchy is necessary to keep those in power in check, it's total anarchy that's a problem.
    Don't think there's such thing as "a little anarchy." You either have anarchy, or you have a system of government. It's like saying you have a little bit of zero.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Lets say you have a two 3 inch lines. One is all red and the other is 48% red and 52% blue. Does that mean there's a 50-50 chance they're both red or is the second line matching the all red line by 48%?
    ^^^ Wells using an analogy

  15. #335
    Quote Originally Posted by xylophone View Post
    Don't think there's such thing as "a little anarchy." You either have anarchy, or you have a system of government. It's like saying you have a little bit of zero.
    I wold say libertarianism is anarchy lite.

  16. #336
    Scarab Lord xylophone's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by misspellar View Post
    I wold say libertarianism is anarchy lite.
    Kinda I guess, but libertarianism is just small government, anarchy is absence of government.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Lets say you have a two 3 inch lines. One is all red and the other is 48% red and 52% blue. Does that mean there's a 50-50 chance they're both red or is the second line matching the all red line by 48%?
    ^^^ Wells using an analogy

  17. #337
    Quote Originally Posted by misspellar View Post
    I wold say libertarianism is anarchy lite.
    Libertarianism is Objectivism lite.

  18. #338
    Data Monster Simca's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    FL, United States
    Posts
    10,410
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleSilas View Post
    Ideal scenario based cyclical arguments are like masturbation.

    Interesting topic all that aside. Good luck.
    We already had a thread winner on page 1, apparently. The entire premise for the argument is the same behind the 'true' Communism scenario. Communism would be a great idea if human nature (greed, power, bloodthirst) didn't prevent its final stages.

    Anarchy is basically the same.

    You know what would also be a great idea if humans were good-natured? Democracy. Or theocracy. Or anything ever. Once the people are being rational and not impaired by their instincts, it doesn't matter what type of government it is. It really doesn't.

    The assumptions required to support your outcome are too ridiculous to actually exist and it really baffles me how people think that it could work.
    Global Moderator | Forum Guidelines

  19. #339
    Quote Originally Posted by xylophone View Post
    Kinda I guess, but libertarianism is just small government, anarchy is absence of government.
    Extreme libertarians are about 2 steps from anarchists.

  20. #340
    Deleted
    4 letters.... 1 word.... 4chan. That's anarchy.

    ---------- Post added 2012-04-14 at 02:50 AM ----------

    This topic is nonsense. The court system being privatized. That would keep the corruption out... As if I wouldn't pay a judge not to put me in prison. Monopolies would flourish. I don't even have to go on.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •