Anarchism?

[cale]

Um, wait a minute here.

Organized individuals = government? I don't see this. Keep in mind that anarchism objects to hierarchy and power, not organization or cooperation.

Why don't you first explain why:
"Inevitable criminal alliances" will form.
A conventional police force or government is the only way to deal with such an occurrence.

Maybe with some positive arguing from you I would have more to work with and respond to.

In response to your last thought: and how does government "work" in the real world? You act as if government is the only thing that could possibly work and assume that it does. Inevitably, it works in some places better than others, and at certain times better than others. Care to explain how this is clearly much better than anarchism? What it boils down to is this: you assume the system is "working" because it's what you're accustomed to, and you're apparently unwilling to even entertain other ideas.

Here's a question for you: what happens when inevitable criminal alliances form at the very top of the system's hierarchy?

And your last line shows that you assume it isn't working, pot meet kettle.

I said a primitive government, one where the majority tries to dictate what is and is not acceptable and force that opinion upon others. Look up the definition of anarchy, it's absolute freedom. As soon as you encroach on an individuals freedom to do whatever the hell it is they want to do, you no longer have anarchy. I fail to see how you cannot comprehend this.

Are you really going to claim that crime is not inevitable in society? That would be quite bold of you, I don't suspect you would. As I said, this is the real world and we face real world issues.

As for the condescension about my arguments, save it till you have a proper understanding of the topic you're arguing in favour of.

Go ahead and edit your post. I'm afraid you're the one here with the least understanding of the political theory of anarchy. As has already been stated here, it is not chaos. And it does not goddamned mean you can "do whatever the fuck you want". Facepalm...

an·ar·chy/ˈanərkē/
Noun:
A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Actually, yes..it means you can do whatever the fuck you want. Reading > you

[streetwaves]

That, and his understanding of what anarchy is seems to be completely wrong. My guess, listening to too many angsty children raving about how awesome it would be and ignoring the facts.

Anarchy is a state of total freedom to do whatever it is you care to do, be that morally good or bad. That means I could do the most vile acts imaginable under a state of anarchy and that is allowable. As soon as you try to limit a persons ability to do whatever the fuck he wants to do, you no longer have anarchy. If 99% want peace and love, you cannot dictate what the 1% who want to rape and pillage do...that's fundamental of the principle.

Go ahead and edit your post. I'm afraid you're the one here with the least understanding of the political theory of anarchy. As has already been stated here, it is not chaos. And it does not goddamned mean you can "do whatever the fuck you want". Facepalm...

[streetwaves]

Please do, because as soon as you organize individuals to respond to incidences such as organized crime you have what is essentially a primitive government. They're stipulating and enforcing what the population wants, exactly what current governments do, only on a larger scale.

There are far too many flaws with a government-free society when you try and propose one for the real world which has real world problems. If we lived in a utopia, sure...but we never have and never will have that.

Government is a necessity.

Um, wait a minute here.

Organized individuals = government? I don't see this. Keep in mind that anarchism objects to hierarchy and power, not organization or cooperation.

Why don't you first explain why:
"Inevitable criminal alliances" will form.
A conventional police force or government is the only way to deal with such an occurrence.

Maybe with some positive arguing from you I would have more to work with and respond to.

In response to your last thought: and how does government "work" in the real world? You act as if government is the only thing that could possibly work and assume that it does. Inevitably, it works in some places better than others, and at certain times better than others. Care to explain how this is clearly much better than anarchism? What it boils down to is this: you assume the system is "working" because it's what you're accustomed to, and you're apparently unwilling to even entertain other ideas.

Here's a question for you: what happens when inevitable criminal alliances form at the very top of the system's hierarchy?

[cale]

That, and his understanding of what anarchy is seems to be completely wrong. My guess, listening to too many angsty children raving about how awesome it would be and ignoring the facts.

Anarchy is a state of total freedom to do whatever it is you care to do, be that morally good or bad. That means I could do the most vile acts imaginable under a state of anarchy and that is allowable. As soon as you try to limit a persons ability to do whatever the fuck he wants to do, you no longer have anarchy. If 99% want peace and love, you cannot dictate what the 1% who want to rape and pillage do...that's fundamental of the principle.

[joshh]

What people are pointing out to you is, you would then no longer have Anarchy. Organization of people and law of any kind would rule out Anarchy. Even in small groups.

[cale]

Please do, because as soon as you organize individuals to respond to incidences such as organized crime you have what is essentially a primitive government. They're stipulating and enforcing what the population wants, exactly what current governments do, only on a larger scale.

There are far too many flaws with a government-free society when you try and propose one for the real world which has real world problems. If we lived in a utopia, sure...but we never have and never will have that.

Government is a necessity.

[streetwaves]

im glad a few other people pointed it out then.

this is not a good idea.

die hard atheist here as well.

Well, you've convinced me.

street, how do you propose an anarchist nation deals with the inevitable allegiances of like minded criminals who are more than willing to exploit a lack of government or police/judicial system?

Well essentially anarchy is self-government (the scale of which could arguably be large or small), right? There is a lack of a government but I'm not sure how this makes much of a difference to criminals if the society is still looking out for their best interests.

I'm also sure you will find many different schools of thought on this type of question. Some may envision some sort of "police force". As I said in the OP, I'm not as educated on the subject as I should be to adequately represent anarchism in response to more specific and challenging questions such as yours. But I can take your question and say I'll look into it and get back to you.

[rhE-30]

Agnostic here, and IMO government is a nescesity, although in order for it to function properly it must be beyond the influence of monetary gains. We need it, imagine the stuff they would sell you if nobody was there to regulate business, baby toys would be painted with lead paint.

[cale]

street, how do you propose an anarchist nation deals with the inevitable allegiances of like minded criminals who are more than willing to exploit a lack of government or police/judicial system?

[Kershaw]

im glad a few other people pointed it out then.

this is not a good idea.

die hard atheist here as well.

[streetwaves]

im not going to go back and read all 3 pages... but you want a country with anarchy?

go to somalia. let me know how that turns out for you.

Think we read this post a couple times already in this thread.

[Kershaw]

im not going to go back and read all 3 pages... but you want a country with anarchy?

go to somalia. let me know how that turns out for you.

[streetwaves]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/wo...anted=all&_r=0

2.3 million people behind bars.

^ This how we know our government has gotten outa hand.

And not only do they want to ruin the lives of the people. that insist on doing to other countries. "There are 516,273 U.S. military service members in approximately 150 foreign countries."
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/...3091259776903/

Got into an argument today with my mostly-liberal co-worker on immigration. He's for the whole "pulling people over because they look like illegals" shit. The government must love when they can convince us so easily that in order to fix an issue we should grant them more power over our lives.

For those who argue that we need at least a little bit of government, I'm not sure that's as obvious as you'd think. I'm willing to temporarily give an 'authority' of sorts to a medical doctor performing a surgery on me. I'm not capable of performing it myself.

On the other hand, we live in a representative democracy and essentially vote for those who will enact the policies we already believe in. Why do we need such middle men? Haven't we simply handed over responsibility to someone who is exceedingly likely to either be corrupted, fail to act in our best interests, and/or seek more power?

[Thizzelle]

[Cabriolet]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/wo...anted=all&_r=0

2.3 million people behind bars.

^ This how we know our government has gotten outa hand.

And not only do they want to ruin the lives of the people. that insist on doing to other countries. "There are 516,273 U.S. military service members in approximately 150 foreign countries."
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/...3091259776903/