"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.
-
-
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.Leave a comment:
-
And once you get tired of Somalia, head over to North Korea and tell me how you like your new government-filled life. Before you say "yeah so we need something in the middle": Africa is an extreme example and expecting resounding success from anything there is extremely optimistic.
Africa has a shitload of problems for a multitude of reasons. There's no reason to believe anarchy would equal Africa, but the Somalia example was interesting because it at least suggested an improvement without government.
Apparently, by your logic, in order for an idea to be good it would have to turn Somalia into a paradise? I don't think you can expect that of any form of government any time soon, either.Leave a comment:
-
If you like anarchy go to Somalia, or most any African country.
Be sure to send me a post card of how much you like your new government free life.
For the record, I don't like government, but it is a necessary evil.Leave a comment:
-
Why the condescension?
Anarchy according to Miriam Webster, also means a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government. Chaos is not required.
From the Cato Institute (my favorite libertarian think tank):
From 1960, when Somalia gained its independence, until 1991, it was ruled by a socialist (though, officially, he later abandoned socialism) dictator named Mohamed Siad Barre. Barre’s policies and behavior looked a lot like the wealth-destroying, wildly corrupt, and highly predatory policies and behavior we observe in many other Sub-Saharan African countries today.
In 1991 a coup d’etat tumbled Barre’s regime. Unlike most coups, which replace one predatory government with another, this one replaced the old regime with nothing. Although there have been a few failed attempts at resurrecting government in Somalia, including the most recent one by the international community-backed “Transitional Federal Government,” for the last fifteen- plus years Somalia has been stateless.
This situation has caused a great deal of hand wringing among international observers who continually point to the severe poverty and other problems in the country. Somalia has thus become the “poster child” for government’s indispensability and evidence that anarchy leads to chaotic decline.
The great irony of these claims is that the data we have on anarchic Somalia point in exactly the opposite direction: namely, anarchy in Somalia has produced a higher level of welfare than government did.
In a recent study I compared Somali welfare under anarchy to welfare under government using all key development indicators for which data allowed comparison.[15] According to the data, of the eighteen development indicators, fourteen show unambiguous improvement under anarchy. Life expectancy is higher today than was in the last years of government’s existence; infant mortality has improved twenty-four percent; maternal mortality has fallen over thirty percent; infants with low birth weight has fallen more than fifteen percentage points; access to health facilities has increased more than twenty-five percentage points; access to sanitation has risen eight percentage points; extreme poverty has plummeted nearly twenty percentage points; one year olds fully immunized for TB has grown nearly twenty percentage points, and for measles has increased ten; fatalities due to measles have dropped thirty percent; and the prevalence of TVs, radios, and telephones has jumped between three and twenty-five times.Last edited by frankenbeemer; 10-18-2012, 08:48 PM.Leave a comment:
-
Um, you're objecting to my casual use of the word 'law'.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/law
Among others: "a binding custom or practice of a community".
The use of the word 'law' was also not quite as objectionable as you found it. I should have used a better word to avoid upsetting you, though.Leave a comment:
-
-
Okay, don't get into semantic arguments with me now.
When I said law, I obviously didn't mean there could still be LAWS (as in government-enforced laws). That can't be, because there is no government.
With that said, are you accountable? Sure, punch me in the dick and see what happens. Start burning crops and see how the rest of the people around react. I should have used a better word, sure.
The point is that a society with no government does not mean no accountability. After all, government is simply supposed to be enforcing the accountability we already expect. If government didn't exist, we wouldn't suddenly expect people to get away with punching dicks all over town.
Settle down.Leave a comment:
-
-
god you make my head hurt.
Manic :rofl: I could not have said that any betterLeave a comment:
Leave a comment: