Anarchism?

[frankenbeemer]

god you make my head hurt.


Manic :rofl: I could not have said that any better

mrsleeve, I believe you are dismissing this argument without fair consideration. My initial reaction to the word anarchy was the same as your's and manic's. I feel you have applied only the simplest of definitions to a word that has broader meaning. While I remain convinced we have, in our constitutional republic, the best system of government yet applied, I am not against considering improving it. Democracy, communism, and anarchy all have elements of virtue and vice.

I would argue, from a personal freedom point of view, this discussion is something of an extension of the federalist argument that vexed the founders of this country and remains unresolved today. As we are not a pure democracy, but have added elements of socialism, why should we not contemplate elements of anarchy?

I suppose the purest form of anarchy is found in nature, but I do not wish to live as a beast. I do not wish to live in a police state either.

[Cabriolet]

So God is corrupted, why believe?

bc this piece of crap we call our universe came from something, therefore i believe in a supernatural being.

from there i looked and saw no reason for most religions, and Christianity stuck, bc I cant find 100% prof it's wrong.

[streetwaves]

bc this piece of crap we call our universe came from something, therefore i believe in a supernatural being.

from there i looked and saw no reason for most religions, and Christianity stuck, bc I cant find 100% prof it's wrong.

"Came from something" is a bit of an assumption. Did God come from something, or did he just pop into existence? I see no reason the Universe couldn't if he did. Ask yourself whether "nothingness" is even possible.

However let's try to keep this more on anarchism than whether god exists. I just was curious to know what atheists thought on the subject.

[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/

[Thizzelle]

[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?

[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]

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 glad a few other people pointed it out then.

this is not a good idea.

die hard atheist here as well.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.