PDA

View Full Version : anarchy



Pages : [1] 2

Dexter Powerhead
05-20-2005, 08:47 AM
what do u think about anarchy????is it possible in our times

Seiraryu
05-20-2005, 11:57 AM
what do u think about anarchy????is it possible in our times

No.

~ Manu.

Hypodermic_89
05-20-2005, 12:51 PM
Of course it is!

Revolver-2005?
05-20-2005, 01:23 PM
no it isnt people are too ignorant and hatefilled to be able to govern themselves unfortunatly

Leo_ARG
05-20-2005, 01:33 PM
Maybe in 500 years...but it's too difficult when people still believe in god and other leaders who are supossed to save and protect you (bush cough cough).
The people is too ignorant, and governments keep it that way.

ASP
05-20-2005, 07:15 PM
Anything is possible in our times. We could either go to a smaller government, or go to anarchy. Both end up the same, people will govern themselves eventually. I don't think that if we go to anarchy straight from democracy, that it will work well. People right now don't have the capability to govern themselves, this is because we are all ignorant to the complete happenings of the world. Though I see that this is true, many people are to blissfully ignorant to realize that they are ignorant, those are the people that will throw us into anarchy, should that happen in our lifetime.

YouSuck
05-20-2005, 08:02 PM
Anarchy...It is a good Idea...Peace, no governments, no corruption. But in todays society it cant work. People are too wound up in pro-democracy that any form of government that democracy is taboo. All governments have the same ideal PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE. Anarchy wont work because, well, think: If the Y2K happened, would you have looted? If you were insulted, would you retailiate? Its all a question of morals. Humans shoot each other...they stop "a-n-a-r-c-h-y his name is captian anarchy but only in his mind..."

ASP
05-20-2005, 08:15 PM
Anarchy...It is a good Idea...Peace, no governments, no corruption. But in todays society it cant work. People are too wound up in pro-democracy that any form of government that democracy is taboo. All governments have the same ideal PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE. Anarchy wont work because, well, think: If the Y2K happened, would you have looted? If you were insulted, would you retailiate? Its all a question of morals. Humans shoot each other...they stop "a-n-a-r-c-h-y his name is captian anarchy but only in his mind..."
You aren't that bright, are you? Not all governments are out to protect their people. Look at almost every dictatorship(there are a few exclusions). Not all people are looking out for others. You got that anarchy is not able to work at this time, but for the wrong reasons. People don't "taboo" governmet other than democracy, the nature of people retaliating has nothing to do with the point, and Y2K came out of no where there. People can't have anarchy, but this is because people are too ignorant to guide themseves through life. In a utopian society, I believe that people would be well enough informed to govern themselves, but our society is anything but utopian. People would soon be overcome by what they would have to learn to be self-sufficient, and would run back to appointed officials to help them run their lives, and society would repeat its mistakes all over again. The fact is that being governed over has lead us to great leangths in technology briliance, but it has left us stupid in the way of contoling our lives.

ASP
05-20-2005, 08:21 PM
Anarchy is the stupidest ideal society ever. Worse than that one where males are exiled. all that would happen is the first ambitious person would gather a military, take power and rule twice as corruptly as anyone else. Look at fucking HAITI.
What the hell are you talking about? Males getting exiled, what the fuck? Do you have any clue what you are talking about? Anarchy would keep a man from forming an army, because would know not to follow the dumbass. They would be their own protection and wouldn't need to follow an idiot with passion.

ASP
05-20-2005, 08:38 PM
I know that it wouldn't be a place of wonder, but you wouldn't be able to buy society, or rule it with a militaristic power, simply because people wouldn't let you take from the full freedom that they get from an anarchistic society. They, after having had experienced actual government, would much prefer to continue governing themselves, and if that isn't dumbed down enough for you, you're a dumbass.

Little_Miss_1565
05-20-2005, 09:08 PM
Anarchy
Kill a cat
Shoot James Brady in the back
Raise an army of rabid rats
Beat your neighbor with a bat

Anarchy burger
Hold the government
Anarchy burger
Hold the government

Anarchy
Go ape shit
Let them know you're sick of it
Write your congressman
Tell him he sucks
He's only in it for the bucks

Anarchy burger
Hold the government
Anarchy burger
Hold the government

Your robbing can't sell anarchy burgers
And if you wanna be free
Order yourself an anarchy burger
Hold the government please

Anarchy burger
Hold the government
Anarchy burger
Hold the government

America stands for freedom
But if you think you're free
Try walkin into a deli
And urinating on the cheese

Anarchy burger
Hold the government
Anarchy burger
Hold the government
Hold the government please
Hold the government

Anarchy burger
Hold the government
Anarchy burger
Hold the government

Say fuck in front of your mom
FUCK!
And go to school and make an...

Anarchy burger
Hold the government
Anarchy burger
Hold the government


There was a thread while back about some website where a bunch of dikes started a male-free society. Nevermind.

Oh really? I had no idea that walls built to keep out water could form a society, let alone a male-free one.

Sin Studly
05-20-2005, 10:31 PM
This topic isn't worthy of discussion.

notoriousdoc
05-21-2005, 01:24 AM
This topic isn't worthy of discussion.

You posted on it

notoriousdoc
05-21-2005, 01:24 AM
Oh really? I had no idea that walls built to keep out water could form a society, let alone a male-free one.

Classic ! :D

Seiraryu
05-21-2005, 04:05 AM
This topic isn't worthy of discussion.

No, it's not. Which is why I didn't discuss it.

Leo_ARG
05-21-2005, 09:30 AM
No, it's not. Which is why I didn't discuss it.


I prefer some guys from here that a have question, innocent maybe, and some innocent and not very well informed views than someone who pretends to be a genious.
I prefer and ignorant idiot than an idiot who pretends to be a genious.

If you are sooo superior post arguments.Try to help the people,Like I did, help those haven't read much.

Sin Studly
05-21-2005, 11:59 AM
You posted on it

I didn't discuss it.

NOAMR
05-22-2005, 07:02 AM
Well, I don't know if anarchy would be ever possible, but I still believe in it. Like someone sayed somewhere, do you have to believe there would be no war ever to want peace? I think anarchism would be the best, cuz then there is no authority saying whatever you schould do with your life. I think, for the ones who think crime would decrease, that it wouldn't, cuz there is no crime from the government anymore(murder, stealing(taxes)...) who shows how it must. You aren't really oppressed anymore, so you doesn't feel the need to oppress( there is no system anymore who keep you in poverty=>no stealing...).And when there is one criminal, you can take care of it personally, which is a lot more accurate than the inpersonal judge system of today.

But whether or not it would be possible, so there would be no stupids anymore following blindly a leader, I don't know. I just hope people will see that they are better of when they govern themself, but people ae often too lazy for it, and so they just do whatever someone else says. But about you example with the conflict between to persons/groups, I don't really believe that they would become a state from it. Ok, they need more power to beat the other group(if they wonna solve it by power, that's another thing, cuz I don't think it would automaticly happen, it would be a lot easier to solve it peacefully, so that no-one gets hurt. Only when there would be no solution which is good enough for the to parties, and that would be allready unique, they would perhaps use force). But to have more power, they first of need people who also really want whatever they want, and so the both groups won't increase so much. But it would be allready a really big issue when they accept to follow a leader for it, and surely when they accept to let a govern be there for it. I don't think it would ever happen, cuz it's not possible that all people from that area would agree with it. So there are a lot of steps in your text that wouldn't necessary happen, I think it wouldn't even happen that they use force.

NOAMR
05-22-2005, 11:25 AM
Great argument :rolleyes: . I think I'm more the teenager who doesn't like being told what to do:). Well, what I mean with believing in anarchy, is that I think that when there are no authorian leaders, it would be the best. When you have power, you're evilness that perhaps everyone gots inside him, becomes a lot bigger. So yup, I don't like being told what to do, cuz I know it's a lot smarter to find out for myself what I think would be the best. I hate it when people think I should behave/dress on a certain way cuz 'society wants so'. If I doesn't harm someone else, why not. So if you think I'm gay, I don't think I am, but I don't give a shit.

Dexter Powerhead
05-31-2005, 01:42 PM
well this is my opinion: if u believe in your society,and in your politic sistem then continue living comfortable....but(in my case for example)if u aren't agree with your society with your politics and your politic sistem is a real shit........then you have to believe in something impossible in our days like the anarchy...i believe in anarchy but i think it's impossible now.........anarchy is a way to tell the world that you aren't agree with nothing.......not a political sistem......just an utopical dream

hereforone
05-31-2005, 11:09 PM
I don't know what you guys are thinking, anarchy would allow others to take what you have. Survival of the fittest. Sure you wouldn't have to deal with government and all that crap, but there is no one there to protect you. Even though governments may not be perfect, they still offer protection. I know that there are some governments that do not do this, and those are the ones that need to be changed, not eliminated, but reformed.

RXP
06-01-2005, 02:57 AM
Who would provide health care in an anarchist society? Who'd import food when the domestic crop fails?

Splejse
06-01-2005, 03:27 AM
I dont think anachy would be possible in the world these days......... if you were your "king" no one could stop you if you were stealing...... But then, you cant steal when there is anachy.....! I dont think anachy would work out........

wheelchairman
06-01-2005, 05:25 AM
You people are all buffoons. I'm a communist and find anarchists to be idealistically lost in the haze, yet I know more about the anarchic system than you do.

I haven't read the topic, only the last few questions, but I will address the concerns given.

Security is given by people's militia's. They will be groups of people who volunteer to keep the community safe. Although, supposedly according to anarchists, there will be no or little crime, because utopia's generally come true after the revolution. *rolls eyes*.

And RXP- if the domestic crop fails, they will trade for what they need. Most anarchist theorists agree that everyone will be divided up into communities, and of course these communities can trade with each other, it would be on a surplus/need basis, instead of a surplus-profit/need-want basis.

NOAMR
06-01-2005, 05:36 AM
I don't think you guys get what anarchism is about. It's not just the lack of government, it's the lack of authority. It's not just absolute freedom for yourself, but freedom for all(so without anyone harming someone else freedom). So anarchism isn't about 'well, now I can do whatever I want', but about being responsible for what you do, and don't blame a system for it.

In anarchy, they won't be survival of the fittest, but mutual aid. Right now, there is survival of the fittest: the best/richest get the highest politic and economical position. But cuz anarchy is against the more-less division, people will have a disguss against anyone who want to be more(leaders, stealers(by just taking it or by taking it with a factory who pays to less or asks too much). So thiefs won't be popular, they will have a lot problems if they do it(no-one will talk or treat with him, they will perhaps let him feel the same...). Well, they won't be a lot crime anyway, cuz people submit crimes cuz they are opressed(economical-poor...), and that won't happen. And if it happen, it can also b a good way to get it back in balance(why do they nowadays always get the thiefs and robbers who are too poor to pay a lawyer, and the fraudeurs and other economical bosses... get away with it?).

About the health care: I personnally think about a mutual aid system without money, but I will tell more about it later(right now I have to eat).

NOAMR
06-01-2005, 06:44 AM
Okay, about the economic: wheelchairman meant I think kinda the same, but I'll explain a bit more. I think the most fair/equal system is the one explained by Kropotkin. There is no money, and people work for free. But that's no problem, cuz also the products are free. So everyone does the best he can, and you take whatever you need from the production. And nope, I don't think no-one would work then, cuz if no-one works, there is no food..., so they'll have to if they want to survive. People aren't lazy and egoistic, so they would have no problem to work for the community( Kropotkin has scientificly researched it with animals, other cultures...). But the state and capitalism makes us concurents and enemy's of each other, that's why today it isn't shown yet.
Well, it's possible other systems will come, experience will shown what's the best(probably it's a combination, cuz every individual got other ideas). It's possible we will live in a free-market system, but without the limits...the state gives it and which, according to some anarchists(I'm not convinced of it yet), makes it there are still poors. They will also be people who will help the ones who don't have enough money. Another system is the trade-system wcm talked about:you(/you're community/factory) just produce what you need, and the rest, you trade with others.

RXP
06-01-2005, 09:49 AM
And RXP- if the domestic crop fails, they will trade for what they need. Most anarchist theorists agree that everyone will be divided up into communities, and of course these communities can trade with each other, it would be on a surplus/need basis, instead of a surplus-profit/need-want basis.

How do you do this without some sort of soverign? Impossible to organise an import/expet trade without a central leadership role.

NOAMR
06-01-2005, 09:54 AM
You now, I think the argue a central leader is 'needfull', is bullshit. You can simply exchange the goods you need with the goods you have too much. To me, it seems kinda easy to see what is need and what not, but if there is discussion, you just try to find an agreement together(if it's a small group, you can just talk it out, or if it's bigger/you can't get out of it, you just vote). Right now, there also isn't really one 'leader' who let all the goods be on the right place, so that everyone get's enough, isn't it?

RXP
06-01-2005, 09:57 AM
DO you realise hom uch organisation and effort goes into realising what you do and don't need. Currently it works out thru the price signal. Abondon that and you have to plan your economy. Extremely difficult without a central leadership role.

wheelchairman
06-02-2005, 02:43 AM
How do you do this without some sort of soverign? Impossible to organise an import/expet trade without a central leadership role.
I'd agree, but this is because I'm a communist.

I suppose an anarchist would say that the communal administrative organ would be responsible for interacting and communicating with other communities or whatever. Essentially, and eventually, it would come down to a system of logistics in which the same orders (to use an accounting term) are placed, recieved, and sent on a regular basis, with, very likely, any actual need for communication. i.e. it becomes rutine.

shadowind
06-27-2005, 05:58 PM
anarchy is a dream nothing more
people are not smart enough to see people are to dumb to live in peace in a lawless area

Flexing Wings
06-27-2005, 07:08 PM
anarchy is a dream nothing more
people are not smart enough to see people are to dumb to live in peace in a lawless area

we live in lawlessness when you really think about it... ANYWAY

rocketman
06-27-2005, 07:35 PM
what do u think about anarchy????is it possible in our times

bush would have everyone in Iraq before that happens...

RXP
06-28-2005, 01:30 AM
we live in lawlessness when you really think about it... ANYWAY

No we don't. Our society is littered with legal rules and principle at every single level you can think of. Even pre legal societies have law. Maybe not in the eforom we recognise. But they still have law. And Anarchist socities will have law as would communist. Despite what they say.

Sin Studly
06-28-2005, 06:16 AM
I thought you might be cool untill I read this. Then I read your sig. And I sighed. Because the role of empty headed snoby closet racist Brit is taken by NiG, and we don't need 2.

Can we keep her instead? She doesn't babble about classics alla fucking time.

Flexing Wings
06-28-2005, 07:21 AM
I thought you might be cool untill I read this. Then I read your sig. And I sighed. Because the role of empty headed snoby closet racist Brit is taken by NiG, and we don't need 2.

Hey man I was just really drunk. What's wrong with my sig?? And how the hell did you get from that quote to my being a 'closet racist' and 'snob'... the comment was quite drunken and not really thought through, YES, but to take all that from it is a bit melodramatic don't you think???

*re-reads quote, just incase, as does ACTUALLY respect TTIG's opinion...*

Nope still don't understand that... explain... ?

Edit: If people wanna know what I think I may have meant by that I will explain...

And Sin... Keep me?? You'd have to let me out of your personal filthy cage first. And I told you I needed walking twice daily.

Sin Studly
06-28-2005, 07:34 AM
You told me you need feeding too, but do I listen?

livingdeadgirl
06-28-2005, 07:46 AM
ssevillano.free.fr/.../ pages/anarchy.htm (http://)

Flexing Wings
06-28-2005, 07:51 AM
You told me you need feeding too, but do I listen?

*Chews on Sin's arm* Sorry, what?

Jesus
06-28-2005, 08:04 AM
Most anarchist theorists agree that everyone will be divided up into communities, and of course these communities can trade with each other, it would be on a surplus/need basis, instead of a surplus-profit/need-want basis.

Hehehe anarchist theorists, those have to be former marxists (or perhaps even liberals) if they are actually bothered to write out a theory how a society should look like etc. . A few of'm rightfully don't, since there is no point in it, human behaviour is to complex to even try to write out a complete future system or society. A trial error pragmatic/practial "system" adapted to constant cultural and social evolution based on a few principles beats any dogmatic utopian nonsense which doesn't have any connection to reality. Noamr appears to fit the latter category.

wheelchairman
06-28-2005, 08:11 AM
I agree, however some basic questions need to be answered before you fight something. (like how do you plan on feeding people). The liberals like you mentioned, had this in mind with the invisible hand.

NOAMR doesn't really deserve the title of anarchist, he has no understanding of strategy and goals. Or perhaps only Marxists ever bother to be so organized.

Yatesy
06-29-2005, 05:23 AM
Anarchy won't work, although as stated earlier it would work in theory.

Flexing Wings
06-29-2005, 08:49 AM
I was stoned when I typed that but I'm sticking to it. Except for the part about your sig, I didn't read it. I disliked your location, and that's what I meant to say. You're still better than NiG though.

You still didn't really explain. How did you get from the one to the other? And since I clearly stated that I didn't really think about it at all, I was drunk... and therefore I just felt like saying it, and didn't really care... how does it even matter? Or have any bearing suddenly on me as a person?

NOAMR
06-30-2005, 06:17 AM
I also think we schould allready think how we can 'organise' everything, but the choose schould be uppon the people, and it schould be tried out before you can see whether it works or not( so trial and error). So in the beginning, there will be a lot of possibilities tried out, but the best will simply survive. That can be kinda communist, where everything that is produced is from everyone, and so everyone just take from it what he needs and produce what he can and likes the much( I think this is the best in a society where computers... take over the work of humans, and so humans don't really have to work that much, except for services, where the government is often the employer. I don't think give that in hands of capitalism, where the profit is important, is without risks). It could also be a mutual aid system, where things, services... are traded. It could also be a free-market system, but one without a state who keeps the unequality by importtaxes, supporting certain company's and so let the monopoly stay... Or it could be something else, or prolly, a combination.
Oh, and Maria, my English isn't that good, what is Leviathan (it isn't in my dictionnary:))?

Sin Studly
06-30-2005, 07:09 AM
The average anarchist is as intelligent and rational as NOAMR.

^ Proof positive that anarchism could never ever work. Ever.

dexterisMYman
06-30-2005, 08:54 AM
what do u think about anarchy????is it possible in our times
i think it is very possible in our times. as 4 my view on anarchy i dont really no if i like it or not.

NOAMR
06-30-2005, 01:35 PM
Leviathan is a biblical monster. In Hobbes, ppl commit themselves to his care, thus forfeiting their personal liberties, lest they should fall prey to violence.

I don't have a CLUE how you can equate anarchism with communism, tis paradoxical & mindboggling.

Maria

I don't see how people who make a leader theirselfs as a god or monster, is relating to anarchism. That isn't anarchism cuz you say it yourself, they give up their freedom for it. It's exally society control, people invent it and everyone has to follow it, or society looks down on him. That's rule, not true anarchism. But I think people can believe in a God as a confirmation of their values: they aren't sure enough off themselfs to stand up and truely believe in what they think, but if they believe their is a God who thinks the same, they are. Kinda like what in the bible stood:"There is no master on earth, the only master I have is God", something like that. I don't believe, but I think that's a good way.
And the goal of communism is exally kinda the same as anarchism, but with a step where the government gets (a lot of) control/everything becomes communal good, until there is no possesion anymore, no-one who gets more than someone else and so can rule over him. And at that moment, the state can be abolished. The problem was that power makes corrupt, and the one in charge didn't truly followed the communist ideology and became rulers and owners themselfs. But the goal was a stateless and classless society, just like anarchism.
And about whether or not anarchism would be possible: I don't know if people could ever stop following a leader and think for themselfs, and can stop being greeding for power. I believe in evolution, people have allready evoluted a lot, they can allready take decisions, what animals can mostly not, they just follow their instinct. We allready live in a democracy, there aren't absolute values like in the Middle Ages anymore. So I think it's the next step in history, maybe it will take long, maybe it won't happen at all(we would allready destroyed the world by then), but I don't think that's important. I think the ruling over someone else is bad, and I believe anarchism is the best system. People are sheeps, they perhaps can't stop the programating by society and the government, but I don't want it, and I won't let it happen. The pint isn't whether it is possible or not(so whether will stop the control over their lives), but whether it is good or not.

wheelchairman
06-30-2005, 02:29 PM
You want to know the secret to getting people to believe you are intelligent?

One word,

paragraphs.

NOAMR
06-30-2005, 02:51 PM
I got paragraphs, I simply didn't led an open space between it. And I don't think the form is important, it's what's in it that is important.

wheelchairman
07-01-2005, 06:34 AM
I got paragraphs, I simply didn't led an open space between it. And I don't think the form is important, it's what's in it that is important.
Form is incredibly important. It makes it much more readable. The way it is now, it just looks like the emotional rantings of a lunatic.

Sin Studly
07-01-2005, 10:56 AM
it just looks like the emotional rantings of a lunatic.

Dude, he's an anarchist.

NOAMR
07-02-2005, 08:38 AM
For one thing, anarchism isn't anarchy, for another, why do you feel the need to further stultify yourself by that sloppy use of double consonants?

Nastiness aside, if ppl commanded their lives to Leviathan's care, that is because in an anarchist world, power lies in the hands of the mightiest. To my untrained eyes, anarchy equals might is right.

Maria


I think it is in this world that might is right. The ones who can explain it the best or have rich parents, get the best jobs, become politicians, control our life, can buy thereselfs out of prison,... It's cuz we live in a hiërcharchy, where people are rated from 'worse' to 'best'( you start as a simple worker, than you become group boss, and the richest can become managers and company bosses; in school, they just rate someone on his points, being good in maths, latin... is the highest, being bad at that and being good at working with your hands is the 'lowest'...). In anarchism, every capacity is equal, and everyone does where he is the best in. No-one is 'better' or 'worse' than someone else, we are all just different. I think you are more thinking of the biased perception of anarchy.

And okay, I know it's more handy if I would've made the previous text a little bit more readable, but I just made it quickly, and I think WHAT is told is more important than HOW it is told (what is perhaps the problem of politics and the world today).

NOAMR
07-03-2005, 08:37 AM
Yup, prolly :(. But I think we can all try to fight against hiërcharchy and change it as much as possible. Cuz in hiërcharchy, the exploited basis is always the biggest, there is still some hope.

greek
07-03-2005, 04:25 PM
when i hear anarchy i think low intelligent persons with low knowlegde of history who just want to do something very "bad". b4 some years i was thinking the same but now i realized the truth.wake up....

NOAMR
07-04-2005, 06:41 AM
I think you don't know what real anarchism is. I remember, the first time I heard about it, I asked my father what it was, and he sayed 'no rules, no government, everyone can do whatever they want'. I tought 'sounds cool, but that isn't possible. If everyone starts to drive at the left and ignore the traffic lights, there is chaos'. But I didn't know where it stands for yet: self-responsibility, thinking for yourself and not some stupid leader, no authority who controls you're life... It's exally a phylosophy, a way of life and thinking.

Sin Studly
07-04-2005, 07:57 AM
But people aren't intelligent to self-govern. People need the strong paternal hand of a fascist despot to lead them.

Dexter Powerhead
07-04-2005, 08:24 AM
what kind of idiot are u? was hitler intelligent...........and paternal¡?¡?¡?maybe for you but for the normal peolpe he was just an animal, a degenerate man with a degenerate mind...............just like you asshole

Green_Day
07-04-2005, 08:27 AM
what kind of idiot are u? was hitler intelligent...........and paternal¡?¡?¡?maybe for you but for the normal peolpe he was just an animal, a degenerate man with a degenerate mind...............just like you asshole

finally someone intelligent to answer that... i'll be nice nvm

ermdevi@tion
07-04-2005, 11:07 AM
was hitler intelligent....

To answer your question, yes Hitler was a pretty intelligent fellow.

Sin Studly
07-04-2005, 11:27 AM
wah wah wah Hitler wah wah wah asshole

Hitler wasn't an ideal dictator. Franco was far better.

And yes, Hitler was both fiercely intelligent and paternal, the father-figure to the most powerful nation in the world at one stage. Just because you disagree with his actions doesn't mean you should try to negate his good qualities. I mean, shit, the man exterminated over 6 million people and started a world war and the worst thing you can think to say about him is "he wasn't intelligent or paternal"

NOAMR
07-04-2005, 02:10 PM
But people aren't intelligent to self-govern. People need the strong paternal hand of a fascist despot to lead them.

If people aren't intelligent enough to govern themselfs, how can they be intelligent enough to govern others? All the war and death nations has brought, shows they aren't. If people get power, they become addicted to it and use all force to keep it. Hitler was prolly intelligent, but he was also egoistic and powergreedy. They are a lot of 'intelligent' dictators, but they still are to addicted to power and so create so much death...

T-6005
07-04-2005, 02:16 PM
Not everyone is intelligent enough to govern. Some are. I think that was more Sin Studly's point. Not that I agree with dictatorship. If we found the perfect dictator, sure - but obviously he would have to agree with my view of the world. And there's just no continuity between one all-powerful dictator and another - they're bound to disagree somewhere along the line. At some point along that line, it won't be to the good. Which is mostly why dictatorship is a ridiculous idea. Not because one person shouldn't be given so much power, but because of disagreements within the wielding of that power between one and the next.

And anarchy would essentially be the breaking down of power unto the individual, who - according to your reasoning, now - would "become addicted to it and use all force to keep it". If intelligent people can't be expected to use it for the good, how can stupid people?

NOAMR
07-04-2005, 02:28 PM
In anarchism, no-one has power to govern someone else, that's when you can damage something. They can decide to live their lifes like they want, but when they harm others, the others won't accept it. First, some people will try to convince them they harm the others, and that the harm will come back to them. They will be unpopular, don't have a job easy, no friends... So they will see that they can govern themselfs more if they doesn't govern others.

If you have no big power, no army..., you can't bring so many death. And no-one wonna die for someone else. If you get no followers, you won't kill that easely and misuse you're power, cuz they are consequences for you personnally( if you try to kill someone, that someone can defend himself and kills you/ the other society consequences I spoke about).

Green_Day
07-04-2005, 03:14 PM
i dont' believe in anarchy cause i don't believe in human beings

Jhonny
07-04-2005, 03:19 PM
starts to sing at captain anarchy**

Sin Studly
07-04-2005, 11:25 PM
If people aren't intelligent enough to govern themselfs, how can they be intelligent enough to govern others? All the war and death nations has brought, shows they aren't. If people get power, they become addicted to it and use all force to keep it. Hitler was prolly intelligent, but he was also egoistic and powergreedy. They are a lot of 'intelligent' dictators, but they still are to addicted to power and so create so much death...

Most people are too stupid to govern themselves, or others. That's why you need somebody intelligent enough to govern everybody. Like T-6005 said, like you obviously realised I was saying but tried to pretend you didn't just so you could make more lame pro-anarchy arguments.

And there would be any wars if there was one rule. Just purges of the disloyal. The number of deaths would be substantially curtailed. Just look at Genghis Khan, for instance. He might have committed a shitload of atrocities while he was taking and consolidating power, but life under his rule was a shitload better than it was outside of it.

NOAMR
07-06-2005, 12:32 PM
I think history has showen people in power aren't necessary intelligent in the way that is needed for it: don't wonna harm someone. I don't think someone is better than me, and so can say what I schould do and what not. People right now are too not intelligent enough to govern themself, cuz they are not used to. You schould give them some power, so they can become themselfs, and not a robot. I also explained social 'control' will be good enough to keep the 'people who can't govern themself' from harming someone. They will still be rulez for those who can't do without, but they won't be anymore for those who don't need it.

Battousai
07-06-2005, 01:09 PM
anarchy is never possible, if one tries to defy the system, it will eventually destroy that one person. I've learned in American Literature that the romantics a.k.a. anarchists are a very unstable cult. every time someone would try to defy authority, they would be destroyed as it was shown in the movie: Dead Poets Society. but in these times of revolution and moral decay I'd say that anarchy is possible, the U.S. is about to screw itself over and if we want a new age, we have to fight for it, kinda like in "Defy You" if you listen closely and read the lyrics more in depth. but that's just me.

Sin Studly
07-06-2005, 03:47 PM
I don't think someone is better than me, and so can say what I schould do and what not.

Babe, a single-cell amoeba is better than you and has the right to tell you what you should and shouldn't do. You're a fucking retard and shouldn't even be making decisions like "which breakfast cereal to eat this morning" on your own.

wheelchairman
07-07-2005, 08:45 AM
I've learned in American Literature that the romantics a.k.a. anarchists are a very unstable cult. every time someone would try to defy authority, they would be destroyed as it was shown in the movie: Dead Poets Society. but in these times of revolution and moral decay I'd say that anarchy is possible, the U.S. is about to screw itself over and if we want a new age, we have to fight for it, kinda like in "Defy You" if you listen closely and read the lyrics more in depth. but that's just me.
Single handedly the dumbest post in this thread. I was gonna select the parts of it that were really dumb. But I couldn't choose.

Sin Studly
07-07-2005, 08:48 AM
His other post was better. Rape hasn't been invented 200 years ago, heh.

Battousai
07-30-2005, 11:26 PM
Single handedly the dumbest post in this thread. I was gonna select the parts of it that were really dumb. But I couldn't choose.

say what you want, i'm just stating the obvious

Battousai
07-30-2005, 11:29 PM
You people are all buffoons. I'm a communist and find anarchists to be idealistically lost in the haze, yet I know more about the anarchic system than you do.

I haven't read the topic, only the last few questions, but I will address the concerns given.

Security is given by people's militia's. They will be groups of people who volunteer to keep the community safe. Although, supposedly according to anarchists, there will be no or little crime, because utopia's generally come true after the revolution. *rolls eyes*.

And RXP- if the domestic crop fails, they will trade for what they need. Most anarchist theorists agree that everyone will be divided up into communities, and of course these communities can trade with each other, it would be on a surplus/need basis, instead of a surplus-profit/need-want basis.

oh so thats why you thought mine was stupid, you're a conformist rofl

kickass0987654321
07-30-2005, 11:55 PM
What's anarchy? I thought it was like a person who is like a trouble maker or something.

NOAMR
07-31-2005, 07:01 AM
Not at all. Anarchism is no rulers, no-one who oppress someone else with it's absolute rules which you schouldn't question and are kept by force(police, army...). Everyone schould be free to think and do whatever he want, but he is self-resposible, if he harms someone, it's his fault, and cuz he harms someone else freedom then, he can be punished, withhold from it( people who harm other people, won't be popular and will have lower chances. The society is based on mutual aid, so it schould come from two sides). Well, read the topic, there is allready some information, or check these sites:
http://www.theanarchistalternative.info/
www.anarchism.net (well, the forum is very interesting discussion, and I think you can also find much information, but the first site is better).

HisHolinessSatan
07-31-2005, 07:31 AM
Human nature, specifically the tendency towards beng exceptionally greedy, makes anarchy impossible. The technological boom amongst other things has made useless material goods, be highly valued. The current world market is not anymore about food, contruction materials, or knowledge on a surplus-deficit basis. It's now all about who has the latest computer, which allows you to go on the Internet, which allows you to download the latest porn. A conglomeration of several small idealistic communites that are spread out far enough to be able to intersupport each other based on individual geographical convenience, while possible, is unlikely not so much from the sheer lack of popular suppor this would have, but because there is no way to aquire territory on this planet without having a military force (in this situation, it would probably be a militia-like volunteer force, or hired mercenaries), and whoever controlled the military would have all the power, and that would automatically defeat the anarchy.

RXP
07-31-2005, 07:46 AM
Anarchsits also talk alot of bull shit. I mean they think social unrest is a HUGE problem when the fact is it's in a minority of people, as is most criminal activity. And without leaders people are junglies. The best ilustration of that is once a soverign has been overthrown and there's choas afterwards.

anarchygirl666
07-31-2005, 11:45 AM
Human nature, specifically the tendency towards beng exceptionally greedy, makes anarchy impossible. The technological boom amongst other things has made useless material goods, be highly valued. The current world market is not anymore about food, contruction materials, or knowledge on a surplus-deficit basis. It's now all about who has the latest computer, which allows you to go on the Internet, which allows you to download the latest porn. A conglomeration of several small idealistic communites that are spread out far enough to be able to intersupport each other based on individual geographical convenience, while possible, is unlikely not so much from the sheer lack of popular suppor this would have, but because there is no way to aquire territory on this planet without having a military force (in this situation, it would probably be a militia-like volunteer force, or hired mercenaries), and whoever controlled the military would have all the power, and that would automatically defeat the anarchy.

I completely agree.

HisHolinessSatan
07-31-2005, 11:49 AM
good lol that drained all my brain power for a week.

anarchygirl666
07-31-2005, 11:53 AM
good lol that drained all my brain power for a week.

Ha yeah figures...that was some pretty intense logic.

HisHolinessSatan
07-31-2005, 11:56 AM
Hey my Bday is Dec 26 1990 too. And I live in Maryland. Where do u live in Maryland?

anarchygirl666
07-31-2005, 11:57 AM
Hey my Bday is Dec 26 1990 too. And I live in Maryland. Where do u live in Maryland?

It's a small world isn't it? Bethesda...and you?

HisHolinessSatan
07-31-2005, 11:58 AM
Same.... What school?

anarchygirl666
07-31-2005, 12:01 PM
Same.... What school?

Whitman. How about you? This is getting pretty freaky.

HisHolinessSatan
07-31-2005, 12:01 PM
Walter Johnson


And yes. Highly.

anarchygirl666
07-31-2005, 12:03 PM
Walter Johnson


And yes. Highly.

Yes...we've played you in football I think.

HisHolinessSatan
07-31-2005, 12:04 PM
We probably lost, seeing as how our football team is tragically useless. Whats your name?

anarchygirl666
07-31-2005, 12:06 PM
We probably lost, seeing as how our football team is tragically useless. Whats your name?


Paige Michaels

anarchygirl666
07-31-2005, 12:11 PM
Jean-Luc Tilly (French) what kinda music do you like, besised The Offspring?


Everything...The Ramones, The Clash, Nine Inch Nails, Velvet Revolver, GNR

HisHolinessSatan
07-31-2005, 12:13 PM
Yeah same, STP one of my fav too. And Primus. You know them?

anarchygirl666
07-31-2005, 12:15 PM
Yeah same, STP one of my fav too. And Primus. You know them?

No, sorry but maybe you can tell me more about them or something...

HisHolinessSatan
07-31-2005, 12:20 PM
You got Windows Media player?

If so,
Go on it
Click on the thing that says "Guide" (Top mid of your screen)
Theres gonna be a text box and a Search button next to it right below "Guide"
In the search box, type "My name is Mud"
Click on the first media thing, and listen. Then go buy the CD.

anarchygirl666
07-31-2005, 12:27 PM
You got Windows Media player?

If so,
Go on it
Click on the thing that says "Guide" (Top mid of your screen)
Theres gonna be a text box and a Search button next to it right below "Guide"
In the search box, type "My name is Mud"
Click on the first media thing, and listen. Then go buy the CD.

Ha, once I get some money I'll buy it. Now what year are you going into in highschool?

HisHolinessSatan
07-31-2005, 12:28 PM
Sophomore you?

anarchygirl666
07-31-2005, 12:30 PM
Sophomore you?


Same here.

HisHolinessSatan
07-31-2005, 12:32 PM
O ha we have same birthday. Same year too. Small wonder. So you youngest in your grade too?

anarchygirl666
07-31-2005, 12:53 PM
O ha we have same birthday. Same year too. Small wonder. So you youngest in your grade too?


Yes, all my friends are already 15. They make fun of my age...lol

HisHolinessSatan
07-31-2005, 12:58 PM
Wut kinda addictions do you have?

anarchygirl666
07-31-2005, 12:59 PM
Wut kinda addictions do you have?


caffeine, noise, glue....you?

HisHolinessSatan
07-31-2005, 01:01 PM
caffeine nicotine if I had more alcohol, there would be alcohol too...
But no such luck.

anarchygirl666
07-31-2005, 01:24 PM
caffeine nicotine if I had more alcohol, there would be alcohol too...
But no such luck.


Ha thats cool. So...not to sound creepy but do you have a girlfriend?

HisHolinessSatan
07-31-2005, 01:28 PM
Ha no, you have a boyfriend?

anarchygirl666
07-31-2005, 01:30 PM
Single over here...want my sn?

HisHolinessSatan
07-31-2005, 01:31 PM
If it AIM sure...

anarchygirl666
07-31-2005, 01:32 PM
If it AIM sure...


bouncinofwalls6

...dont ask i was in a sugarcult phase...had this sn since 6th grade

Jojan
07-31-2005, 02:06 PM
Anarchy is allways possible. Depends on what kind of anarchy you want. Thare are som many facist theese days that they would start killing whoever they hate. And then the anti facist will kill the facist and vise versa. So many people would die if it happend now.

Jakebert
07-31-2005, 02:07 PM
Even though the topic has defenitly shifted, I feel like commenting on the original topic.

Anarchy wouldn't work because of human nature. Humans are, when it comes down to it, very self-centered. With anarchy, the most self-centered people would eventually take advantage of the lack of laws and government to benefit themselves by taking advantage of others. Without guidelines to follow, businesses and corporations would eventually start to screw citizens out of money, and would eventually start to screw employees aswell.

Also, there simply has to be some form of government to function, simply because of public education, the upkeep of roads, and things to that extent. If anarchy was possible, it could be great, but could never work because of human nature. It may be able to work on a smaller scale, like maybe with a primative tribe or something, but never on a large-scale normal civilization like the United States.

Also, anarchist civilizations would eventually be taken over by organized countries and turned into the government of that country just because they wouldn't be organized enough to fight that country off.

HisHolinessSatan
07-31-2005, 06:07 PM
Hey dudes sorry bout the topic takeover lol. We don't really have that many fascists nations at present, not enough to set up the situation you were predicting Jojan.

NOAMR
08-01-2005, 10:09 AM
Even though the topic has defenitly shifted, I feel like commenting on the original topic.

Anarchy wouldn't work because of human nature. Humans are, when it comes down to it, very self-centered. With anarchy, the most self-centered people would eventually take advantage of the lack of laws and government to benefit themselves by taking advantage of others. Without guidelines to follow, businesses and corporations would eventually start to screw citizens out of money, and would eventually start to screw employees aswell.

People are self-centrered, but they also are very social. People wouldn't have survived without each other, we are exally very weak animals. But right now, being selfish is supported: making career, getting higher and higher(which often hurt others), earns more and so is better for your life. While being social and work for your community(voluntary work are work in the social section like nurses...), earns less and so is worse for your life. In anarchism, there is no hiërarchy and so you schould work together to accomplish something. If business screw their customers, people won't take it and start a business or something themselfs. The time of monopolies and limited possibilities is over, people will experimate which economical system is the best for them.

So summarized: right now, the bad human nature is supported, while in anarchism, the good human naturte will.


Also, there simply has to be some form of government to function, simply because of public education, the upkeep of roads, and things to that extent. If anarchy was possible, it could be great, but could never work because of human nature. It may be able to work on a smaller scale, like maybe with a primative tribe or something, but never on a large-scale normal civilization like the United States.

I think education schould be objective, and so schouldn't come from one institute. Government education can never be objective, cuz they doesn't want to say anything bad about themselfs. A lot of different sorts would be the best, cuz then people can choose which is the best for them and their kids. All the practical things like roads... will be done voluntary by the community, cuz they simply need it. When their is still a capitalistic system, the community could pay their workers so that they can survive too. But it is also possible their comes a sort of mutual aid system, also cuz with the automatisising, the service sector increases.


Also, anarchist civilizations would eventually be taken over by organized countries and turned into the government of that country just because they wouldn't be organized enough to fight that country off.

That's why a lot of anarchists think their schould be world anarchism( so whole the world schould turn into anarchism at the same moment). Well, I don't think that's realistic, but I think that if one area turns into anarchism and people of other areas surrounding them see how it can work, they will also change into it. The democrating governments can't really do anything against the anarchistic area, cuz they don't hurt them and so they will have their people against them. Well, they can always make up some lies why it will be 'need'.

shadowind
08-01-2005, 01:52 PM
anarchy for large groups of people is a dream nothing more
it might work in small tribes
but people would still abuse the power

NOAMR
08-02-2005, 05:46 AM
There is no power they can abuse, if they wonna do bad things that hurts the community, the community won't let it happen.

shadowind
08-02-2005, 12:35 PM
There is no power they can abuse, if they wonna do bad things that hurts the community, the community won't let it happen.
see im sneaky they would never know

the_GoDdEsS
08-02-2005, 12:53 PM
Boys and girls, use MSN/AIM/ICQ or the Private Message option in the upper right corner to carry on private conversations. Thank you.

NOAMR
08-03-2005, 07:05 AM
see im sneaky they would never know


People will know everyone from their community. Family, friends... will see there is something wrong/find something...(example:when someone steels a lot, people will question how comes he has so much money last times... and see the link). They'll try to stop him and be angry on him....

shadowind
08-03-2005, 08:45 AM
People will know everyone from their community. Family, friends... will see there is something wrong/find something...(example:when someone steels a lot, people will question how comes he has so much money last times... and see the link). They'll try to stop him and be angry on him....

and i'll have a group of people saying i did nothing wrong/ how could they be sure what evidence ext and thier will be a big fight over it

NOAMR
08-03-2005, 10:23 AM
And how will you get a group behind you who will defend you, they have no profit of it, they'll only be unpopular if the rest find out. It's possible close family/friends want to defend him, but they still wouldn't support it and try to pull him of 'the path of evil'. And I don't see why they suddenly schould fight, a group things he did it, another group sayes he didn't, so there will probably start someone an investigation to find proove whether he did it or not.

Btw, the 'sneaky problem' isn't any bigger than right now, criminals also take it silence right now. It's right now exally bigger, cuz they have more reason to do it: they are now judged by absolute rules, who doesn't look to their personality, their reasons but just say it is "wrong" without looking farther. In anarchism, people will look to the reasons and problems of the 'criminal', to help him by the roots of the problem. Also, people will know each other better, and so see faster if someone did a 'crime'.

shadowind
08-03-2005, 10:55 AM
2 entries found for anarchy.

an·ar·chy
n. pl. an·ar·chies
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

[New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhihttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gif, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a-1 + arkhos, ruler; see -arch.]
[Download Now (http://dictionary.reference.com/go/http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/eref/buy_HMAFF00004.jsp) or Buy the Book (http://dictionary.reference.com/bookstore/ahd4.html)]
Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=00-database-info&db=ahd4): The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


anarchy

n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government) [syn: lawlessness (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lawlessness)]


Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=00-database-info&db=wn): WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


disorder no laws just what the people say is right or wrong wich make the laws witch are laws wich makes order but the order would be shaky people would mess with peoples minds to get what they want but another person would do the same thing but it would have a different affect people would say this is right no its wrong ext ext ext they would divide they wouldn't be unified they would fight for what they believed to be right, that might include making the "heathens" in other communitys convert to another faith by force if nessicary ext and some other communitys would love them for it others would hate them for it it would be almost costant war that or die in a raid becuse you couldn't defend yourself
people give up their so called freedom for peace becuse they would be liveing in fear of the other communitys or the ruleing people in their own communitys

think about it not everyone would follow the rules the power would go to a group of peoples heads that could control the masses. people would force thier beliefs down other peoples throats

it would be choas

NOAMR
08-04-2005, 06:22 AM
2 entries found for anarchy.

an·ar·chy
n. pl. an·ar·chies
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

[New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhihttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gif, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a-1 + arkhos, ruler; see -arch.]
[Download Now (http://dictionary.reference.com/go/http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/eref/buy_HMAFF00004.jsp) or Buy the Book (http://dictionary.reference.com/bookstore/ahd4.html)]
Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=00-database-info&db=ahd4): The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


anarchy

n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government) [syn: lawlessness (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lawlessness)]


Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=00-database-info&db=wn): WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


disorder no laws just what the people say is right or wrong wich make the laws witch are laws wich makes order but the order would be shaky people would mess with peoples minds to get what they want but another person would do the same thing but it would have a different affect people would say this is right no its wrong ext ext ext they would divide they wouldn't be unified they would fight for what they believed to be right, that might include making the "heathens" in other communitys convert to another faith by force if nessicary ext and some other communitys would love them for it others would hate them for it it would be almost costant war that or die in a raid becuse you couldn't defend yourself
people give up their so called freedom for peace becuse they would be liveing in fear of the other communitys or the ruleing people in their own communitys

think about it not everyone would follow the rules the power would go to a group of peoples heads that could control the masses. people would force thier beliefs down other peoples throats

it would be choas

I personally like to use the term anarchism, cuz the word anarchy is indeed wrongly used as chaos tru history

an·ar·chism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-kzm)
n.
1.The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2.Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3.Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
anar·chistic (-kstk) adj.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


anarchism

n : a political theory favoring the abolition of governments

I've never trully trusted dictionnary's, because, cuz it's the meaning of the majority and they have a 'monopoly', they are never 100% objective. Well, nothing is 100% objective, that's impossible.

Now about your post: people messing with other people's mind is exally what politicians today do, and is against anarchy: it is a ruler who does it. If there is not one right and wrong, people will have multible live views which they could follow, and will so be less brainwashed. Everyone can choose their way of live, and no liveform is oppressed, so they have no reason to fight for what they believe is right. Immigrants often experience their religion more than their family in the homeland, cuz they are a minority who has to defend themself all the time. I think it is good they aren't too unified, cuz then everyone schould be the same, and everyone who isn't, is oppressed/kicked-out... Yes, then you create fight for their faith, and that is happening right now. And converting by force etc isn't anarchy at all, that's rule.

So a summarize: like always, you say things that aren't anarchy anymore, cuz they are rule, and wouldn't happen prolly. It is what made the situation today, or what is the situation today. So let me say one thing: think before you write, and remember: rule isn't anarchy or anarchism. So then explain how it can be chaos and violence?

shadowind
08-04-2005, 10:56 AM
people will always have leaders
or some one they trust that they are willing to do almost anything for
sure you may have anarchism at first but soon people would start to follow people and do what they say, the anarchism state would become rule and the people might not even notice it

NOAMR
08-05-2005, 05:56 AM
people will always have leaders
or some one they trust that they are willing to do almost anything for
sure you may have anarchism at first but soon people would start to follow people and do what they say, the anarchism state would become rule and the people might not even notice it

I don't believe that, I believe the mind off the people will evoluate still more and so it will be able to think for 'mself. People won't just do whatever someone says, they will listen to wise people who know more then them and so learn from them, but they won't follow them blindly and do anything for them. And the 'leaders' won't oppress them, they just give knowledge, and if they do, the fall in discredit cuz they aren't wise anymore, but powergreedy, so than they won't have "followers" or students at all.
And even tho it won't be possible, it's what I think would be the best and so how more it is, how better. I want that people see how the state oppress themselfs, and learn to think for themselfs and not follow society. Not cuz it isn't possible, that it isn't good.

noodlesfan
08-06-2005, 05:19 PM
the problem with anarchy is..well;


"hey, that was mine"
-little kid

*BANG BANG BANG*
-gun

"hey, youre cute"
-anyone

*BANG BANG BANG*
-bed

and there is no way back to the way things were, the one with the guns is the one who rules, you dont govern yourself, unless you got the bombs, get it?
the concept of anarchy is good, but it wouldnt work, not nowadays, not while people still know what democracy is or was.

NOAMR
08-07-2005, 08:47 AM
the problem with anarchy is..well;


"hey, that was mine"
-little kid

*BANG BANG BANG*
-gun

"hey, youre cute"
-anyone

*BANG BANG BANG*
-bed

and there is no way back to the way things were, the one with the guns is the one who rules, you dont govern yourself, unless you got the bombs, get it?
the concept of anarchy is good, but it wouldnt work, not nowadays, not while people still know what democracy is or was.

Okay, sry, but I think this is way too simplistic, you don't know the strength and solidarity... of humans. In anarchism, there is no rule, and no need for it(again). People with guns will be frightened and hated, and won't have anything to say in the community, people won't let them rule. If someone with a gun has no possibility to have friends, have a job... he will be better off and have more power if he throws his gun away.

It's pretty stupid to just do something cuz there is no-one saying you schouldn't. The more you give/do for the community, to more you get back, the less you do, the less you get(or only bad things), so the best way to surive will be to be social/solidair...

Battousai
01-07-2006, 01:54 PM
Okay, sry, but I think this is way too simplistic, you don't know the strength and solidarity... of humans. In anarchism, there is no rule, and no need for it(again). People with guns will be frightened and hated, and won't have anything to say in the community, people won't let them rule. If someone with a gun has no possibility to have friends, have a job... he will be better off and have more power if he throws his gun away.

It's pretty stupid to just do something cuz there is no-one saying you schouldn't. The more you give/do for the community, to more you get back, the less you do, the less you get(or only bad things), so the best way to surive will be to be social/solidair...

ok i can agree and disagree with what you've said. i can agree with the point you're making about getting rid of the ability to rule a society. a ruler is the symbol of power and once that symbol of power has been destroyed, then there's no temptation to try and take up that role. However, the point you made about people with guns is what bothers me. You see, weapons have been used as tools to enforce laws and restrict aspects of life in age-old societies. Those weapons have always been misused and always caused chaos. In a modern day society such as this, once rule has been eliminated, there will be no one to order police forces to enforce law or to stop them from committing crimes. therefore, the people with the guns you're talking about, could care less about whether or not they give back to the community or not. they'll just want everything for themselves. people like that will always exist. even if their extermination was possible, it will in turn corrupt those who have donoe so. its a never-ending cycle. If there was going to be a true society of anarchy, then there would be no form of government whatsoever, and no symbols of fear, temptation, or power.

Corporate America
01-08-2006, 01:18 PM
Anarchy would be sweet if most of the populace of america wasn't so ignorant or conservative. Anarchy is out of the question in America because we wouldn't be able to handle it. We can't govern ourselves anymore because the media and the government force us to believe we need order and laws to keep us alive. Also, violence rates would sky rocket because there would be no gun restrictions. Anarchy is only possible is new countries who havent already been brainwashed into believing it is impossible to achieve.

Also, if you want anarchy so bad, rise up and get it. Talking about it does nothing except get others hurt. If you want it, do something about it. That is another reason we can't achieve anarchy. The punk rock society as a whole (no offense) is too unorganised to do anything about it. The closet we have ever gotten was shooting a cop. And all that got us was a night in jail. If you want anarchy, get a group together AND DO SOMETHING.

All About Eve
01-08-2006, 11:57 PM
Does the first paragraph of the post above remind anyone else of how the essays went in middleschool as we were just learning to write them?

*point.* *support* "also," *point* *support*

Ahh, memories.

Corporate America
01-09-2006, 12:46 PM
wow good one... making fun of somebody because they actually aren't pollitically idiotic. basically you just said "haha, you can write good!"

ruroken
01-09-2006, 01:07 PM
goddammit I thought I killed this thread.

EDIT: Oh, this is a different thread about it.


blah.
HITOKIRI HIMURA BATTOSAI!!!!! WHEWT! WASSUP?!!?! Ima add you to MSN and bug the shit out of you until we're like, buddies and shit! lolz

XYlophonetreeZ
01-09-2006, 01:26 PM
Anarchy would be sweet if most of the populace of america wasn't so ignorant or conservative. Anarchy is out of the question in America because we wouldn't be able to handle it. We can't govern ourselves anymore because the media and the government force us to believe we need order and laws to keep us alive. Also, violence rates would sky rocket because there would be no gun restrictions. Anarchy is only possible is new countries who havent already been brainwashed into believing it is impossible to achieve.

Also, if you want anarchy so bad, rise up and get it. Talking about it does nothing except get others hurt. If you want it, do something about it. That is another reason we can't achieve anarchy. The punk rock society as a whole (no offense) is too unorganised to do anything about it. The closet we have ever gotten was shooting a cop. And all that got us was a night in jail. If you want anarchy, get a group together AND DO SOMETHING.
sounds like an innovatve and revaloutionary idea.

hey guys, who wants to sign up for the BBS anarchy group? we coudl call ourselves DO SOMETHING, because were going to DO SOMETHING. I think taht this shoud werk bcuz teh Offspring are a punk rock band, so on the Offspring message board there shoud be alot of punks who are serious about anarchy. we shoudl settle for nothign less. we coud be that little engine that could! we could be that groupe that RISES UP AN GETS IT!!!! if you want to join, just email me at anarkypunkosaurus666@hotmail.com (wolfdogvodka@yahoo.com) and let me no. oh and big props to COrporate America (no not corporate america the oppressive natoin (fuck bush!) but the BBS poster :p)!

That_Guy91
01-09-2006, 02:04 PM
wow good one... making fun of somebody because they actually aren't pollitically idiotic. basically you just said "haha, you can write good!"
But you are politically idiotic. People don't need to be brainwashed to know anarchy won't work. The first few people who get greedy could just get some guns and take over, because there won't be any cops or military to stop them.

Corporate America
01-09-2006, 02:36 PM
I'm not brainwashing anybody if that's what you mean. I'm simply stating my opinion on anarchy. I'm not politically idiotic because I realise facts, I'm not just another idealistic liberal with his head in the clouds. I am liberal but I do something about my ideas. Don't even start calling me idiotic.

TheUnholyNightbringer
01-09-2006, 02:37 PM
The first few people who get greedy could just get some guns and take over, because there won't be any cops or military to stop them.

Anybody anarchic.. I dare you to respond to this.

nieh
01-09-2006, 02:41 PM
"People won't get greedy because they won't"

TheUnholyNightbringer
01-09-2006, 02:43 PM
I'm expecting something like "the community will judge them."

I'd respond with "guns are persuasive."

Corporate America
01-09-2006, 02:44 PM
If that's a serious response I might kill myself. That's like saying species wont reproduct because they wont.

TheUnholyNightbringer
01-09-2006, 02:46 PM
If that's a serious response I might kill myself. That's like saying species wont reproduct because they wont.

I think he's being humurous.

nieh
01-09-2006, 02:46 PM
There's also the argument of money. People claim that they will still be able to live a modern lifestyle complete with money when there's no government backing up the value of said money. Money is worthless unless there's something backing it up. Without that it's just paper. Either way, the instant people start to get greedy, the whole system will be fucked. Communism and Anarchism both require a fundamental change to humanity that it's not possible to achieve on a large, permanent scale. As shitty as capitalism can be, at least it realizes the flaws in humanity and takes advantage of people's greed to an extent.

nieh
01-09-2006, 02:47 PM
If that's a serious response I might kill myself. That's like saying species wont reproduct because they wont.

It was a less wordy version of the exact same answer that other people have given me.

Corporate America
01-09-2006, 02:48 PM
Oh good man... I was about to start crying

Jebus
01-09-2006, 02:51 PM
I am liberal but I do something about my ideas.
What have you, a 15 year old boy, done to put your liberal ideas in action?

other than starting a punk rawk band....

Corporate America
01-09-2006, 02:53 PM
I started a organization called the Youth Action Alliance and we have held protests, leafletted, held speeches, etc. Before that all I did was send letters to reps and stuff that really got nothing done.

killer_queen
01-09-2006, 02:55 PM
Awwwww... That's kinda sad.

TheUnholyNightbringer
01-09-2006, 03:03 PM
Okay, sry, but I think this is way too simplistic, you don't know the strength and solidarity... of humans. In anarchism, there is no rule, and no need for it(again). People with guns will be frightened and hated, and won't have anything to say in the community, people won't let them rule. If someone with a gun has no possibility to have friends, have a job... he will be better off and have more power if he throws his gun away.

They "wont let him rule"? How's about him going "I make the decisions and if you don't agree, I'm going to kill you"?

That_Guy91
01-09-2006, 03:08 PM
Also, you can't say that he won't have friends. Theres more than one gun and more than one selfish person.

T-6005
01-09-2006, 03:32 PM
You people obviously don't understand the power harnessed in making mean faces.

nieh
01-09-2006, 03:38 PM
You people obviously don't understand the power harnessed in making mean faces.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

T-6005
01-09-2006, 03:55 PM
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
You're absolutely right. In an anarchist society I wouldn't have written that.

nieh
01-09-2006, 04:05 PM
I'm sorry, I feel I may have gone overboard. One face should have been sufficient, I had no right to give you four.

That_Guy91
01-09-2006, 08:14 PM
Wow. Just wow.

How long did that take?

T-6005
01-09-2006, 10:35 PM
TTIG is handy with the army of mad faces. My gun is no match for them, because I now feel so bad that I couldn't possibly kill all those people and take everything they own to live in opulence for the rest of my days.

ruroken
01-10-2006, 10:27 AM
One of my friends was wearing an anarchy shirt and I asked her "What's wrong with the government?" and she had no idea.

Seriously!! Goddammit that pisses me off! It's like, where's your goddam logic?! Then, when I'm talking about it to them, they get all offended because I'm "telling them what to do" or "attacking their beliefs".

*long string of angry ruroken swearing yelling and smashing things*


whatchu growlin at says:
Why? Do you have ANY idea how fucking stupid it (note: Anarchy) is?
x#xNicole-Fiascox#x = teen.runaway.youth.depraved = says:
I know how fucking STUPID the government is.
whatchu growlin at says:
Uh, no
whatchu growlin at says:
They do a LOT of shit for you
whatchu growlin at says:
And you'd be totally fucked over without them
whatchu growlin at says:
There'd be no laws, and therefore no enforcement
whatchu growlin at says:
Guess what?
x#xNicole-Fiascox#x = teen.runaway.youth.depraved = says:
Durrr, Anarchy=no laws
x#xNicole-Fiascox#x = teen.runaway.youth.depraved = says:
=chaos
whatchu growlin at says:
Everyone can KILL and STEAL and there's not a goddam thing you can do about it
whatchu growlin at says:
You want that?
whatchu growlin at says:
To lose everything?
whatchu growlin at says:
Then kill yourself
x#xNicole-Fiascox#x = teen.runaway.youth.depraved = says:
Who said I'd lose everything?
whatchu growlin at says:
you would
x#xNicole-Fiascox#x = teen.runaway.youth.depraved = says:
I love how you decide for me.
whatchu growlin at says:
It's a FACT
whatchu growlin at says:
Not an opinion, you stupid fuck
x#xNicole-Fiascox#x = teen.runaway.youth.depraved = says:
You know, you really need to get over your fucking self. You're not as superior as you must think.
whatchu growlin at says:
You don't have a fucking choice
whatchu growlin at says:
Me?
whatchu growlin at says:
What in the hell does this have to do with ME?
[her (for some reason her name wasn't copied)]
I don't really care. It's what I believe in and you're not going to change my opinions about the government.
whatchu growlin at says:
You don't get it though
whatchu growlin at says:
You can hate them all you want
whatchu growlin at says:
But you shouldn't want the governement gone
whatchu growlin at says:
In fact, you act as if it's a single being
x#xNicole-Fiascox#x = teen.runaway.youth.depraved = says:
And you shouldn't tell me what I want.
whatchu growlin at says:
What I'm saying is, want it to change. Not to die
whatchu growlin at says:
Pff, then kill yourself. Fool
x#xNicole-Fiascox#x = teen.runaway.youth.depraved = says:
Oh fuck you. It's not like I'm going to make some bombs and try to hit them.
whatchu growlin at says:
Still, if the chance of a movement were to occur, some kind of worldwide movement, you'd no doubt partake, correct?
x#xNicole-Fiascox#x = teen.runaway.youth.depraved = says:
It depends.
whatchu growlin at says:
on what? Why wouldn't you fight for what you believe if you believe it so much?
x#xNicole-Fiascox#x = teen.runaway.youth.depraved = says:
I said it depends.
whatchu growlin at says:
on what?
whatchu growlin at says:
What does it depend on?
x#xNicole-Fiascox#x = teen.runaway.youth.depraved = says:
I might, I might not.
whatchu growlin at says:
why?
x#xNicole-Fiascox#x = teen.runaway.youth.depraved = says:
Because.
whatchu growlin at says:
Wow, you have no reasoning at all.
x#xNicole-Fiascox#x = teen.runaway.youth.depraved = says:
I could've told you that.
whatchu growlin at says:
So what gives you the right to hold an opinion that, to you, should be respected?

SmilingBob
01-10-2006, 08:41 PM
Hands up all those of you who have some possetion you would never give up...
Ok, so that'll be all of you (me included) and that is the reason Anarchy cannot and will not work. When I was younger I loved the thought of Anarchism. The freedom, the complete lack of any governance at all. But it's just not realistic. People are too concerned with money, possetions, personal goals etc. If the state did, somehow, collapse we'd end up with Nihilism, not anarchy. More violence than peace. To all those who say it's work, read up on it before you comment. :P

NOAMR
01-11-2006, 07:01 AM
Hands up all those of you who have some possetion you would never give up...
Ok, so that'll be all of you (me included) and that is the reason Anarchy cannot and will not work. When I was younger I loved the thought of Anarchism. The freedom, the complete lack of any governance at all. But it's just not realistic. People are too concerned with money, possetions, personal goals etc. If the state did, somehow, collapse we'd end up with Nihilism, not anarchy. More violence than peace. To all those who say it's work, read up on it before you comment. :P

First of, I don't see what the problem is of possesion together with anarchism. In anarchism, there won't be any rule and so unjusticed taking or having a possesion won't happen anymore(like now the rich who own mines, factories etc, and or supported by the government). You don't get no rule anymore if you just put away the government, but I belief possesions will be a lot more equal and justiied devided in anarchy.

Coming to a world with no rule is a long proces, and there will prolly be always rule(if 2 persons want the same object and only one can have it, the others 'freedom' is always oppressed, what is against anarchy. You'll never be able to do everything(you can't fly), so there'll always be rule). But I think that the more rule/oppression/taking of someone's freedom you put away, the better it is. I don't believe in anarchy there will be more violence(exally definionary impossible, since anarchy=no rule and violence is rule). A person on his own simply can't do so much as a heavy-structured government or hiërarchal institute.

I also think how people act is a lot influenced by the situation, the environment. If people grow up with rule, they don't really see it as something bad but as something normal, and will easely do it also. Like a guy who was always hit by his father, will often also hit his own children. Marx also sayed something like that, I guess: that you schould first change the economical situation(make it more equal), and that the political and cultural things will change automaticly too. Guess that's also what you're saying: people right now are too greedy, so if you put away the 'problem' of possesion (by rule) first, the system will automaticly become also equal and the government will bez unnecessary. (No that I'm for communism, I think history has shown people, even communists, can't rule justified, without giving themselfs more, and also can't just give up the power).

SmilingBob
01-12-2006, 08:23 PM
The subject of possesions is relevet because people will still want what they don't have and therefore will take whatever they want. That will sometimes lead to violence. And eventualy people will group to improve their chances of gaining things, leading to a return to a governed state.

nieh
01-12-2006, 09:02 PM
Ruroken's pwning skills are amazing. Have you ever thought of joining your school's debate team?

T-6005
01-12-2006, 09:31 PM
Ruroken's pwning skills are amazing. Have you ever thought of joining your school's debate team?
It's almost funny. Then you realize it's a real person.

NOAMR
01-20-2006, 11:41 AM
The subject of possesions is relevet because people will still want what they don't have and therefore will take whatever they want. That will sometimes lead to violence. And eventualy people will group to improve their chances of gaining things, leading to a return to a governed state.

And what if everything is from everyone, or at least of everyone who contribute to society? People just make stuff/dot things, and give it for free to others, cuz they know the other also does something for him or at least for some persons. People will prolly still being greedy, but they can't get it by being an egoïst, but by contributing more to society. So if you want something, you can simply get it. Violence will be prolly a much harder and dangerous way, since you need more then your goodwill for it.

That_Guy91
01-20-2006, 12:27 PM
Oh good, you're back. The average IQ of the board almost started to rise a little.

TheUnholyNightbringer
01-20-2006, 12:28 PM
And what if everything is from everyone, or at least of everyone who contribute to society? People just make stuff/dot things, and give it for free to others, cuz they know the other also does something for him or at least for some persons. People will prolly still being greedy, but they can't get it by being an egoïst, but by contributing more to society. So if you want something, you can simply get it. Violence will be prolly a much harder and dangerous way, since you need more then your goodwill for it.

"I rule because I have all the guns and you don't."

There is no escaping that sentence.

ruroken
01-20-2006, 01:12 PM
Grr

x92+10
...-5 for sucking so much.

That_Guy91
01-20-2006, 01:12 PM
ruroken, that pwn was so weak it didn't make sense.

ruroken
01-20-2006, 01:14 PM
What in the hell are you talking about? Why do you think I was trying to 'pwn'? It was irrelevent to everything in the thread, nor was it specified as to who it was directed at.

But I'll use words rather than symbols:

Grr times 92 plus 10 ...minus 5 for sucking so much

That_Guy91
01-20-2006, 01:16 PM
Well I just assumed it was another weak attempt at pwnage from reading the rest of your contributions to this thread.

TheUnholyNightbringer
01-20-2006, 01:17 PM
I've just noticed ruroken's sig. I presume Ash is talking about the mods.

Ash never fails to reach higher levels of disappointment.

ruroken
01-20-2006, 01:19 PM
Doesn't change the fact that the person I was talking to (in my quote in my first post) is an idiot.

haha, "other contributions"...there was only one somewhat-relevent post. Plus, I was trying to kill this thread, since it killed the other one.


I've just noticed ruroken's sig. I presume Ash is talking about the mods.

Ash never fails to reach higher levels of disappointment.
Sorta...more the 1337 in entirety than just the mods.

TheUnholyNightbringer
01-20-2006, 01:23 PM
How many times do we have to tell you, the 1337 don't exist?

ruroken
01-20-2006, 01:24 PM
When did you say that? I dun remember...but we all know the people it refers to, so what does it matter anyway?

TheUnholyNightbringer
01-20-2006, 01:26 PM
I wanna see if anyone gets the, albeit obscure and not very funny, joke in that post.


How many times do we have to tell you, the 1337 don't exist?

Look closely.

T-6005
01-20-2006, 02:19 PM
I wanna see if anyone gets the, albeit obscure and not very funny, joke in that post.



Look closely.
There's not much looking to do. But I'm amused.

That_Guy91
01-20-2006, 02:23 PM
Oh, I get it. damn, I can't believe it took me that long. I guess i'm slow today.

NOAMR
01-21-2006, 09:53 AM
"I rule because I have all the guns and you don't."

There is no escaping that sentence.

If there would be someone who makes guns, he would only give it to people who he can trust, who will protect the community with it and not the other way around. People will only give steel etc to the gun-maker if they know he's responsible. As soon as someone start to rule with a gun, the distribution(of steel or guns) will stop for him, so there will be no way to have all the guns, the rest will fast produce more guns then the 'bad man'.

That_Guy91
01-21-2006, 10:03 AM
If there would be someone who makes guns, he would only give it to people who he can trust, who will protect the community with it and not the other way around. People will only give steel etc to the gun-maker if they know he's responsible. As soon as someone start to rule with a gun, the distribution(of steel or guns) will stop for him, so there will be no way to have all the guns, the rest will fast produce more guns then the 'bad man'.
First of all, there would already be guns around from before there was anarchy. Second, there will always be at least one manufacturer of guns that would be corrupt. Third, as long as there are any guns in the world, there will be ways for criminals to get them.

el_monkey
01-22-2006, 03:16 AM
First of all, there would already be guns around from before there was anarchy. Second, there will always be at least one manufacturer of guns that would be corrupt. Third, as long as there are any guns in the world, there will be ways for criminals to get them.

fifth: as long as the USA exists there will be people running around with guns like idiots

NOAMR
01-22-2006, 06:37 AM
First of all, there would already be guns around from before there was anarchy. Second, there will always be at least one manufacturer of guns that would be corrupt. Third, as long as there are any guns in the world, there will be ways for criminals to get them.

First: guns get broken too, they don't stay there forever, so if you doesn't have steel etc anymore, you'll become weak fast. Second: haven't I explained allready that a gun-maker also need steel, and no-one will give it to a corrupt person who is a danger for yourself. Third: that's why the responsible of each individual person is so important, no state can stop criminals from getting guns, but if everyone act more according to his principles, gun industry won't be so big anymore(there are a lot of people who hate violence and guns, but still support the weapon industry, just for the money of it). Fourth(fifth for monkeys who can't count): okay, this scenario prolly only works 100%(so with the result of no guns), if there are no corrupt states anymore, and everyone takes his responsibility. But, if there is a danger, there can still be reliable gun-makers who make gun for people who will use it only to protect the community.

The hypothesis was that someone could have ALL the guns in anarchy, and so rule. But in anarchy, people have more self-power to stop ruling, there is no big ruling organisation anymore who can support elements who are bad for the community. If a group starts a hiërarchical organisation, all contributing to something bad, that could be a problem. But they'll always be a minority(simply cuz if you rule with the majority of the people, you'll have little profit), so the majority can easely unarm them( a majority can produce and do more). Having ALL the guns on your own is simply impossible, since you need the support of the people for it(by giving steel etc). That means they let them rule, and that's the main 'bad' act in anarchy.

That_Guy91
01-22-2006, 07:58 AM
First: guns get broken too, they don't stay there forever, so if you doesn't have steel etc anymore, you'll become weak fast. Second: haven't I explained allready that a gun-maker also need steel, and no-one will give it to a corrupt person who is a danger for yourself. Third: that's why the responsible of each individual person is so important, no state can stop criminals from getting guns, but if everyone act more according to his principles, gun industry won't be so big anymore(there are a lot of people who hate violence and guns, but still support the weapon industry, just for the money of it). Fourth(fifth for monkeys who can't count): okay, this scenario prolly only works 100%(so with the result of no guns), if there are no corrupt states anymore, and everyone takes his responsibility. But, if there is a danger, there can still be reliable gun-makers who make gun for people who will use it only to protect the community.

The hypothesis was that someone could have ALL the guns in anarchy, and so rule. But in anarchy, people have more self-power to stop ruling, there is no big ruling organisation anymore who can support elements who are bad for the community. If a group starts a hiërarchical organisation, all contributing to something bad, that could be a problem. But they'll always be a minority(simply cuz if you rule with the majority of the people, you'll have little profit), so the majority can easely unarm them( a majority can produce and do more). Having ALL the guns on your own is simply impossible, since you need the support of the people for it(by giving steel etc). That means they let them rule, and that's the main 'bad' act in anarchy.

You may not like it, but some criminals are smart. Smart enough to use the guns they have to get more guns. They can use the guns to kill people and take the steel. And just so you know, the state isn't responsible for all corruption. People can be bad all by themselves. And they don't need to have every gun, just more than the people they threaten.

You put so much emphasis on the people having power, but how can they possibly unify that power without any government?

nieh
01-22-2006, 11:21 AM
If there would be someone who makes guns, he would only give it to people who he can trust, who will protect the community with it and not the other way around. People will only give steel etc to the gun-maker if they know he's responsible. As soon as someone start to rule with a gun, the distribution(of steel or guns) will stop for him, so there will be no way to have all the guns, the rest will fast produce more guns then the 'bad man'.

Nobody HAS to make guns. Guns already exist in plentiful numbers.


First: guns get broken too, they don't stay there forever, so if you doesn't have steel etc anymore, you'll become weak fast.

Bullshit. There are guns from the revolutionary war, 200+ years ago, that still work (though not very well) and they've only gotten better at making them over the years. Do you think the guns are going to just break on their own like 5 years after anarchy starts? They're going to be around for a long, long time and people WILL take advantage of this.

the_GoDdEsS
01-22-2006, 11:54 AM
People who he can trust? You can trust no human being with a gun.

the_GoDdEsS
01-22-2006, 11:56 AM
fifth: as long as the USA exists there will be people running around with guns like idiots

While other nations prefer gas.

el_monkey
01-22-2006, 02:09 PM
While other nations prefer gas.

while other people live in the past...

That_Guy91
01-22-2006, 05:14 PM
Holy shit, NOAMR isn't the only moron in the thread anymore!

DeAtHsTaR
09-13-2006, 06:54 PM
Just thought I'd bump a thread for this definition of an anarchist I found while browsing the internets.



1. One who supports the concept of anarchy.

2. Obnoxious 12 year old whose primary reading material is totse.com, wears shitty scream metal t-shirts or hooded sweatshirts bearing the ever-so-rebellious "anarchy" symbol, and fantasizes about gunpowder and pipe bombs while masturbating. Usually very short-tempered, this being a direct result of their unbelievably cruel upbringing as a scrawny, middle-class white kid in the suburbs.

1. I believe in and support the concept of anarchy.

2. My parents make me take out the garbage, so I will rebel against their oppressive ways by skateboarding and carving my name into the walls of a bus-shack.

fischer
09-14-2006, 01:07 PM
I don't like idea of anarchy. It is impossible. Hey, have you ever thought that the idea of anarchy was born in reach and socially provided Europe? Why not in hungry Africa or Asia? Because it was boring for somebody.
It is a hole dream, you live in advanced society. It is only a 10-14 kids dreams who have problems with parents. Or something like that, you understand what I mean. That's my opinion about anarchy, who disagree please don't cry I don't want to argue, it is only my opinion.
What about me, I like advanced society and I like an order. Cause it is very terribly to live in a shit. Go to the poorest countries where you will be a piece of shit and you will forget about anarchy.

T-6005
09-14-2006, 01:29 PM
Cause it is very terribly to live in a shit.
Seriously, if that doesn't stop the argument for anarchy in its tracks, I'll be annoyed at TEH SYSTM that allows anarchists to exist, and forever be for bringing it down.

wheelchairman
09-14-2006, 01:44 PM
I'll be very cliché, but I'm convinced most anarchists live with their parents.

T-6005
09-14-2006, 01:47 PM
I'll be very cliché, but I'm convinced most anarchists live with their parents.
Do you think they live in a terribly shit too?

Whiplash
09-14-2006, 01:51 PM
No, I think they all have parents that love them very much. And they probebly get spoiled to death and out of boredom they become so called" anarchist's"

wheelchairman
09-14-2006, 01:59 PM
Stop jumping on the bandwagon. Would someone please post that awesome paint picture.

Whiplash
09-14-2006, 02:01 PM
dude, shut up. I'm not jumping on any ''bandwagon''. I just gave my opinion.

0r4ng3
09-14-2006, 02:07 PM
Hey look, it's another bandwagon!

*boards other bandwagon*

I heard somewhere that anarchists don't give a fuck if it's good enough for you.
Cuz they're alive!

fischer
09-14-2006, 02:10 PM
Hey look, it's another bandwagon!

*boards other bandwagon*

I heard somewhere that anarchists don't give a fuck if it's good enough for you.
Cuz they're alive!

Are you one of them?

T-6005
09-14-2006, 06:33 PM
Are you one of them?
No more hope for better days!

Killer Dwarf
09-14-2006, 08:46 PM
What the anarchis' need to do is vote for a leader !!!! LMAO

T-6005
09-15-2006, 02:20 AM
What the anarchis' need to do is vote for a leader !!!! LMAO
I really hope you do laugh your ass off and spend the rest of your days too busy chasing after it to post here ever again.

EDIT - I'm sorry, LMAO!!!

Norwegian Cat
09-18-2006, 12:05 PM
Hmm... long time since I've been on this forum. Missed me? :rolleyes: It's curious I fell into the anarchy thread...


Stop jumping on the bandwagon. Would someone please post that awesome paint picture.

This one?

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a100/nocat/uwantanarky.gif

I found this typing "anarchy" in altavista. The guy who painted them has also some other cartoons. I found his "political comics" utterly ridiculous and irrelevant to the subject each cartoon is about. Just for curiosity... http://www.nick15.com/comics/

NOAMR
09-28-2006, 02:10 PM
I don't like idea of anarchy. It is impossible. Hey, have you ever thought that the idea of anarchy was born in reach and socially provided Europe? Why not in hungry Africa or Asia? Because it was boring for somebody.
It is a hole dream, you live in advanced society. It is only a 10-14 kids dreams who have problems with parents. Or something like that, you understand what I mean. That's my opinion about anarchy, who disagree please don't cry I don't want to argue, it is only my opinion.
What about me, I like advanced society and I like an order. Cause it is very terribly to live in a shit. Go to the poorest countries where you will be a piece of shit and you will forget about anarchy.

Anarchism was born when Europe was socially and economicly very bad, with bosses exploiting the workers etc. Kindof the situation of Africa and Asia nowadays.Dunno why there are not so many social movements there(or at least we don't hear about them, maybe we just don't want to hear of any critism of our system). Perhaps no-one listen to any non-violent protest, so they start to use violent(which I don't support),and that, we simply call terrorism. You canlet them listen without violence, but then you need help from the masses, and it's hard to get there.
If you go to the poorest countries, you'll see that all the shit there is caused by a government(used as"an oppresive organ").
Anarchists also like order, organisation...(that's very useful to let a society trurn), but we just don't like force, coercion. The anarchist sign means "anarchy is order", and all the kids wearing the anarchist sign also don't know, they're just as brainwashed about the term as you. I don't know what is for you "a piece of shit", but for me, that's a world of oppression, crime etc, and that's exactly where anarchists are against.


Well, I also don't feel much for the discussion, simply cuz you know nothing but the stereotype, and don't stand open to change it.

wheelchairman
09-28-2006, 03:23 PM
I live in my own apartment, and I own no weapons (beyond kitchen utensils and the pocket knife I use to cut my toes.) Why should I dislike the police?

RickyCrack
09-28-2006, 03:41 PM
Anarchy totally. It's like no government, but we still need police, bakers, bankers, a monetary system, but who will regulate this monetary system? An Elected board of officials? That totally defeats the purpose.

ninthlayer
09-28-2006, 04:16 PM
the pocket knife I use to cut
Didn't we date?


Anarchy totally. It's like no government, but we still need police, bakers, bankers, a monetary system, but who will regulate this monetary system? An Elected board of officials? That totally defeats the purpose.
lolololololol, teh ppl would barter! l2anarkkkkky

wheelchairman
09-28-2006, 04:51 PM
Didn't we date?

I think we should break up. I can't return your feelings. :(

NOAMR
10-03-2006, 01:44 PM
I live in my own apartment, and I own no weapons (beyond kitchen utensils and the pocket knife I use to cut my toes.) Why should I dislike the police?

If you don't come out of your apartment:you schouldn't. But if you go out, and you are constantly controlled, sometimes beaten-up(just cuz they like it), stealed(with the argument you did something 'wrong'). As example people who are beaten with a club, just cuz they are in a bar close to a manifestation. They are also a lot of innocent peoplein prison, you could become one of them. Simply sayed: if you don't trust a man with a gun, what tells you you can suddenly trust 'm when he got a piece of paper?

Question: do you believe all laws are just?


Anarchy totally. It's like no government, but we still need police, bakers, bankers, a monetary system, but who will regulate this monetary system? An Elected board of officials? That totally defeats the purpose.

What thus government has to do with bakers, even with money? There can still be a monetary system in anarchism, even tho I don't believe it's the best system, and capitalism also causes alot of oppression, stealing is a base of it. But they are still anarcho-capitalists, so that schouldn't withhold you;).
If protection is necessesary(even tho most causes for crime will be away in anarchism), and self-protection isn't sufficient, people can always organize a protection unit(which only protect, as soon as they become an aggressor like the cops today, they won't receive any support anymore, and will fade away).

wheelchairman
10-03-2006, 03:06 PM
If you don't come out of your apartment:you schouldn't. But if you go out, and you are constantly controlled, sometimes beaten-up(just cuz they like it), stealed(with the argument you did something 'wrong'). As example people who are beaten with a club, just cuz they are in a bar close to a manifestation. They are also a lot of innocent peoplein prison, you could become one of them. Simply sayed: if you don't trust a man with a gun, what tells you you can suddenly trust 'm when he got a piece of paper?

Question: do you believe all laws are just?


But I am not constantly controlled. In fact I have never had a problem with the police. Moreover should I ever have any problems, I will most definitely need the police to enforce basic law and order. In Denmark Police brutality is extremely low. (In English manifestation = demonstration.)

I don't trust a man with a gun, I do trust the extensive system designed in training and producing good police officers. I trust it far more than every man for himself.

Question: Do you believe all laws are unjust?

Sexy Panda
10-10-2006, 05:30 AM
Don't be like that Wheelchairman, he asked you if you were a legal positivist so you could at least do him the courtesy of answering.

Consider yourself lucky, where I live 'some' police are nice, some beat you like a bitch.

wheelchairman
10-10-2006, 11:17 AM
Don't be like that Wheelchairman, he asked you if you were a legal positivist so you could at least do him the courtesy of answering.

Consider yourself lucky, where I live 'some' police are nice, some beat you like a bitch.
Why should I answer such a leading question? It's far too absolutist for any answer to have any conclusion worth discussing.

And drop that last sentence, makes you sound like a braggart.

Killer Dwarf
10-10-2006, 12:43 PM
I can't believe this thread has lasted this long. I can't think of one good theory for anarchy. Society needs rules. If not you have anarchy!

Somebody post one thing positive about anarchy…

NOAMR
10-10-2006, 12:48 PM
But I am not constantly controlled. In fact I have never had a problem with the police. Moreover should I ever have any problems, I will most definitely need the police to enforce basic law and order. In Denmark Police brutality is extremely low. (In English manifestation = demonstration.)

I don't trust a man with a gun, I do trust the extensive system designed in training and producing good police officers. I trust it far more than every man for himself.

Question: Do you believe all laws are unjust?

Do you believe you can learn the ethics, morality need to be responsible enough to wear a gun? Don't you think that's mostly mind-set, some people like to opress others when they get power, others doesn't. And if it can be trained, do you believe it happens, don't they most of the time get techinal training?

I don't believe the content of all laws are unjust, but I believe the concept of a law, i.e. FORCING someone to do something, is unjust. I am as example pro social help, trying to fill in the gap between rich and poor by helping the poor, but I don't believe social security, forcing people to give the poor money by let them pay taxes, is the best way. You can't force solidarity on people, that way you kill solidarity, cuz people think the government will take care of everything, so they schouldn't care for each other anymore(but the government can't do that). Plus they get a disgust for solidarity, cuz it's forced.
I believe it would be better if you change things structurally, handle the cause of poorness. And that's simply our economical system of capitalism, it can't exist without the poor, and thief is one of it's basic principals.

Sin Studly
10-10-2006, 01:28 PM
Holy fuck, you're still here???

Venom Symbiote
10-10-2006, 03:23 PM
Kiddies who hate the cops are just plain immature. That's right, I said it. Anyone who believes in anarchism, from the lowliest teenage idealist to the highest academic, is immature.

Coming from a pretty extensive law enforcement/military/emergency services personnel family, I find it pretty offensive all this crap about the police "beating and stealing from people because they feel like it."

Pure ass. That's such a limited minority, you might as well say "all British people give mountain lions rimjobs" or something.

Anarchy is no viable train of thought, it will never happen, and for the most part it's only ever supported by angsty youths wanting to seem "tough" and committed to something that gives them an excuse for their retarded socially-inept behaviour.

And, indeed, for that I hope the police do someday beat you. For no other reason than you're a complete cunt.

That is all.

Sin Studly
10-10-2006, 03:30 PM
I agree with everything you just said. I'm sick of ingrateful little shits who show no respect to the people who risk their lives just to keep them safe at night.

wheelchairman
10-10-2006, 04:01 PM
That's more or less my sentiment. And I got both sides, half my mother's families were cops (somehow during prohibition my grandpa was able to save up enough money to afford to take the family on a trip around the world...) and the other half were/are criminals and deadbeats.

Either way, anarchists in Denmark are morons, we have like the nicest police in the world.

wheelchairman
10-10-2006, 04:06 PM
Do you believe you can learn the ethics, morality need to be responsible enough to wear a gun? Don't you think that's mostly mind-set, some people like to opress others when they get power, others doesn't. And if it can be trained, do you believe it happens, don't they most of the time get techinal training?
You find these people in all forms of any kind of jobs. They can be asses anywhere. Generally I don't think the Danish cops are particularly bad. I've met my share of American cops, some of them were pains in the asses, but the most "punishment" I ever got was a stern talkin' to.



I don't believe the content of all laws are unjust, but I believe the concept of a law, i.e. FORCING someone to do something, is unjust.
Forcing people not to rape? Steal? Murder? Is this injustice? How would you prevent this? Army everybody? Arm no one?



I am as example pro social help, trying to fill in the gap between rich and poor by helping the poor, but I don't believe social security, forcing people to give the poor money by let them pay taxes, is the best way.
Then you are not pro social help, you are pro charity. How would you handle the cause of the poor then? What changes would you make? Why are they not being made when there is such (and has always been) an abundance of poor people?

Perhaps social help can be used to job activation, prevent them from seeking illegal forms of money, and keeping them out of the dangers of being actually poor make create for a person if they have no safety net?

Sin Studly
10-10-2006, 09:22 PM
Holy shit, I missed the post where NOAMR basically said you're more likely to be beaten and robbed by the police than by burned-out mudskin heroin addicts.

Holy fucking shit.

I guess this is what comes from living in the mean streets of a homogenously white upper-class gated estate where the police discourage skateboarding and don't consider graffiti to be 'art'. REBELREBEL!

0r4ng3
10-10-2006, 09:24 PM
I guess this is what comes from living in the mean streets of a homogenously white upper-class gated estate where the police discourage skateboarding and don't consider graffiti to be 'art'. REBELREBEL!
Paptown, revisited?

Venom Symbiote
10-10-2006, 11:59 PM
Call me right-wing or whatever, but graffiti should be a castratable offense.

That'd be my instant reaction to having property violated with spraypaint, anyway. "CUT OFF HIS GONADS!"

It'd be pure hilarity.

JohnnyNemesis
10-11-2006, 12:05 AM
I believe the correct spelling is "anrkey".

Sin Studly
10-11-2006, 12:13 AM
Call me right-wing or whatever, but graffiti should be a castratable offense.

I'd favour an OG style six-packing. Hammer and chisel to both hips, knees and ankles. Or if they prefer, the shoulders, elbows and wrists.

Sexy Panda
10-11-2006, 12:39 AM
Why should I answer such a leading question? It's far too absolutist for any answer to have any conclusion worth discussing.

And drop that last sentence, makes you sound like a braggart.

If you think I was bragging about the cops, you have severely misunderstood my point.

0r4ng3
10-11-2006, 10:54 AM
I believe the correct spelling is "anrkey".

You forgot the "4 lyfe" at the end there.

HornyPope
10-11-2006, 03:27 PM
I believed in anarchy once. So did Justin, heh.

I don't think there is anything wrong with having your own beliefs. It's a phase. You're young, you don't like the current society, you want to think there is so much more out there. It's normal. I respect people who go out of their way to read on alternative politics. Granted, they only read maybe 3 books on topic and a collection of essays on the internet, but that alone is more impressive than a 10th grade English circulum.

XYlophonetreeZ
10-11-2006, 03:47 PM
That's an interesting perspective to look at it from. It's a good way to go about it, and it's best to start when you're young, but it's best when you realize your own youth and keep an open mind. By examining extremes on all sides, and becoming just as educated with things like communism, socialism, totalitarianism, and even anarchy as you are with the political views that are prevalent in our society, you can pick apart the flaws in each on your own without seeing how others have already done it for you. When you mature and you're done with that, your political views can essentially be called the point in the middle at which the deviations from the extremes all coincide. And let's face it, nobody ever really finds that point, but it seems to me that starting from many various points is a more effective way of getting close. However, that doesn't mean that you actually have to believe the things you're researching.

That said, anarkey is still fun to make fun of, and closed-minded young people whose beliefs are obviously direct products of a delusional counterculture fully deserve to be bullied for their political views or else they'll never consider anything else. Just ask That_Guy91.

wheelchairman
10-11-2006, 04:26 PM
And Schuyler still does. LOL

HornyPope
10-11-2006, 04:26 PM
The fact alone that you can for instance name two personal (and highly subjective) reasons for and against the bigger political thoughts and movement of the 19th and 20th century is already a great asset that sets you apart from your classmates (we're talking teenagers here). So yeah, agreed.

HornyPope
10-11-2006, 04:47 PM
And Schuyler still does. LOL

I don't know why but this reminded me I talked to Mags about A2M this morning.


And let's face it, nobody ever really finds that point, but it seems to me that starting from many various points is a more effective way of getting close.

I think currently no one bothers to find a point anymore. Most are complacent and content to simply agree and accept everyone's points and not be hostile about it.

NOAMR
10-12-2006, 08:47 AM
Kiddies who hate the cops are just plain immature. That's right, I said it. Anyone who believes in anarchism, from the lowliest teenage idealist to the highest academic, is immature.

Coming from a pretty extensive law enforcement/military/emergency services personnel family, I find it pretty offensive all this crap about the police "beating and stealing from people because they feel like it."

Pure ass. That's such a limited minority, you might as well say "all British people give mountain lions rimjobs" or something.

Anarchy is no viable train of thought, it will never happen, and for the most part it's only ever supported by angsty youths wanting to seem "tough" and committed to something that gives them an excuse for their retarded socially-inept behaviour.

And, indeed, for that I hope the police do someday beat you. For no other reason than you're a complete cunt.

That is all.

I agree with you that it is a limited minority of cops etc who like to use extreme, useless violence, the procent is probably as high as "normal" people who would do that, so I don't want to offence the people here, they're just a part of the system, but I'm offending the system, the structure who makes this possible. Cops etc use more violence then other people, simply cuz they can. Like they say: power corrupts(and absolute power corrupts absolutely).

The rest of your attack is mainly an attack of the stereotype anarchist, you have no critic of anarchism as a theory at all(I don't even know whether you know 'm), so it isn't worth replying.

NOAMR
10-12-2006, 09:23 AM
You find these people in all forms of any kind of jobs. They can be asses anywhere. Generally I don't think the Danish cops are particularly bad. I've met my share of American cops, some of them were pains in the asses, but the most "punishment" I ever got was a stern talkin' to.



Forcing people not to rape? Steal? Murder? Is this injustice? How would you prevent this? Army everybody? Arm no one?

If you constantly steal(profit is in fact thief, it's the amount of money you ask which isn't need to pay for the produce(materials, workers'pay and director's, organisers... pay)), murder... yourself, you could at least call it hypocrite.

The main solution to handle that, is just to get rid of the causes. Most crimes are done cuz of economicly, psychicly... oppression. Getting rid of capitalism and by that, poorness, will allready help alot.

The self defence of the people, the community,is also very important, but I don't think you necessary need to arm you for that. If their is solidarity, mutual aid, that can handle a lot of crime, cuz even an armed individual can't do a lot against 100 of angry and defensive citizens. It's harder when you're talking about groups, gangs, but then it takes more the form of a state, of war, so then you schould think how to handle despotism, how to get rid of a state(and that's a hard one, cuz everyone schould then take his responsibility of not following a leader blindly, of fighting oppression, of not becoming a leader(but you allready can't when there are no followers anymore).



Then you are not pro social help, you are pro charity. How would you handle the cause of the poor then? What changes would you make? Why are they not being made when there is such (and has always been) an abundance of poor people?

Perhaps social help can be used to job activation, prevent them from seeking illegal forms of money, and keeping them out of the dangers of being actually poor make create for a person if they have no safety net?

Perhaps it's just my bad English, but what I understand by charity, is like giving the poor a little bit of food or money, so that they can just survive, but they don't do anything structurly, so that the workers can have back their rights and their freedom to take care of their lifes themself. And if this is charity, I'm against that(as a method).

We schould get rid of capitalism, which is the main cause of poorness. Factories, companies, schould be collectivelly "owned" by all workers, there schouldn't be one person who can exploit people cuz he has the produce materials. But there can still be an "organiser", someone who see the bigger part, and who see what's need etc. The workers could be anyone willing to work there. I myself am for a kinda mutualist-give away society, where everyone can just give their goods away to everyone, but they aren't forced to it. In case of extreme lowness of goods together with persons who don't do a thing, these persons would probably not receive a lot(food for example is a primitive need, so everyone will get that). The "produce material" are kinda real collectivist, so everyone can use them to produce goods for society. You schould interprete "produce material" more general, also the right for free education could be part of it, so it's like all things people do are use to give something to society(possibly).
There are probably still a lot of other ways to try to get rid of poorness, but practical experience schould bring out the best, and nobody will be forced to handle economics a certain way, so probably there will be all kinds of communities.

The reason why these changes has not yet been made, is because of the capitalist upper-class of course don't want it, and they will do everything to hold their privileges.

NOAMR
10-12-2006, 09:33 AM
Holy shit, I missed the post where NOAMR basically said you're more likely to be beaten and robbed by the police than by burned-out mudskin heroin addicts.

Holy fucking shit.

I guess this is what comes from living in the mean streets of a homogenously white upper-class gated estate where the police discourage skateboarding and don't consider graffiti to be 'art'. REBELREBEL!

I don't live in a white upper-class gated estate, I live in a village where 24% of the people voted for the fascist, nationalist Vlaams Belang(Flemish Importance), cuz they feel threatened by all the muslims there, probably just cuz they hang out in the streets or sometimes stand in the middle of the road with their car, talking to a friend(people who talk! that's not in our culture!Dangerous!). Never really had any problems with them, don't know why they think they have, but I did had with the cops(nothing seriously, but still), and I heard also a lot more bad stories about them(perhaps it's also more frightened cuz you are supposed to be able to trust the cops, and because of their power, you can do nothing against them). Now, I also live partly in a town(for studies), in a Turkey neighbourhood.

Killer Dwarf
10-12-2006, 10:05 AM
We schould get rid of capitalism, which is the main cause of poorness.

You are naïve, especially by using the word “main”. The poverty rate in the USA is 12%. But you said “poorness” not poverty. You would think the country that was built on capitalism would have the largest segment of poor people. Look at the poorest countries in the world, they are not capitalist. Those countries are poor because of economic reasons or inadequacies of their government.

Capitalism and natural selection are exactly the same, Darwin would have made a good capitalist. If you have a company that doesn’t make any money…. It dies, (generally speaking). Profitable companies grow.

Sin Studly
10-12-2006, 10:21 AM
I don't live in a white upper-class gated estate, I live in a village where 24% of the people voted for the fascist, nationalist Vlaams Belang(Flemish Importance), cuz they feel threatened by all the muslims there, probably just cuz they hang out in the streets or sometimes stand in the middle of the road with their car, talking to a friend(people who talk! that's not in our culture!Dangerous!). Never really had any problems with them, don't know why they think they have, but I did had with the cops(nothing seriously, but still), and I heard also a lot more bad stories about them(perhaps it's also more frightened cuz you are supposed to be able to trust the cops, and because of their power, you can do nothing against them). Now, I also live partly in a town(for studies), in a Turkey neighbourhood.

Tell us about your problems with the cops. Did they tell you to stop skateboarding?

wheelchairman
10-12-2006, 12:00 PM
If you constantly steal(profit is in fact thief, it's the amount of money you ask which isn't need to pay for the produce(materials, workers'pay and director's, organisers... pay)), murder... yourself, you could at least call it hypocrite.
I agree profit is just value skimmed from the labour of others. I would not understand how murder got in there though, or what your point is.


The main solution to handle that, is just to get rid of the causes. Most crimes are done cuz of economicly, psychicly... oppression. Getting rid of capitalism and by that, poorness, will allready help alot.
If you were to instantly get rid of capitalism would these problems instantly disappear? No. In fact they most certainly would not. You can get rid of economic oppression, it will not change the problems that existed immediately before. Also how would you explain low crime areas like Denmark? It has a capitalist mixed economy and relatively low crime.


The self defence of the people, the community,is also very important, but I don't think you necessary need to arm you for that. If their is solidarity, mutual aid, that can handle a lot of crime, cuz even an armed individual can't do a lot against 100 of angry and defensive citizens. It's harder when you're talking about groups, gangs, but then it takes more the form of a state, of war, so then you schould think how to handle despotism, how to get rid of a state(and that's a hard one, cuz everyone schould then take his responsibility of not following a leader blindly, of fighting oppression, of not becoming a leader(but you allready can't when there are no followers anymore).

Let me give you my one of my favorite Lenin quotes. "One man with a gun can control 20 without." This is true more or less. What would these hundred people do if 10 armed people came and they were unarmed? In a sense you must be able to combat those who are a threat to you. I have no guns nor knives, so I depend on the police to protect me.




Perhaps it's just my bad English, but what I understand by charity, is like giving the poor a little bit of food or money, so that they can just survive, but they don't do anything structurly, so that the workers can have back their rights and their freedom to take care of their lifes themself. And if this is charity, I'm against that(as a method).
I meant to say your English has gotten better. However your definition of charity is wrong. Charity is when a person chooses to give another person, group or organization money to carry on their activities. (It could go to food for the poor, or whatever.) Let's talk about the workers, I work in a warehouse for Peugeot. This is certainly physical labor, what rights would I get that I don't have? How am I not taking care of my own life? I certainly make enough to live off of.


We schould get rid of capitalism, which is the main cause of poorness. Factories, companies, schould be collectivelly "owned" by all workers, there schouldn't be one person who can exploit people cuz he has the produce materials. But there can still be an "organiser", someone who see the bigger part, and who see what's need etc. The workers could be anyone willing to work there. I myself am for a kinda mutualist-give away society, where everyone can just give their goods away to everyone, but they aren't forced to it. In case of extreme lowness of goods together with persons who don't do a thing, these persons would probably not receive a lot(food for example is a primitive need, so everyone will get that). The "produce material" are kinda real collectivist, so everyone can use them to produce goods for society. You schould interprete "produce material" more general, also the right for free education could be part of it, so it's like all things people do are use to give something to society(possibly).
There are probably still a lot of other ways to try to get rid of poorness, but practical experience schould bring out the best, and nobody will be forced to handle economics a certain way, so probably there will be all kinds of communities.
1. Capitalism is the only source of poverty, seeing as it's the economy...
2. How do you plan on dealing with people who just don't want to work?
Or people who cannot simply work in a social setting?
3. Everyone in Denmark has free education up to the highest level.
4. It sounds like you are describing a free market economy. You just changed the name of the CEO to "Organizer."


The reason why these changes has not yet been made, is because of the capitalist upper-class of course don't want it, and they will do everything to hold their privileges.
And because the major and massive overclass sees that they currently have too much to lose. A minority cannot rule an unwilling majority for very long.


You are naïve, especially by using the word “main”. The poverty rate in the USA is 12%. But you said “poorness” not poverty. You would think the country that was built on capitalism would have the largest segment of poor people. Look at the poorest countries in the world, they are not capitalist. Those countries are poor because of economic reasons or inadequacies of their government.
Which poor countries? I think most of the 3rd world excluding the 3 or 4 "socialist" nations out there, runs on a capitalist economy. How do you explain that?

In fact for a 1st World Country, a poverty rate of 12% is rather large. However the "poverty line" is an American economic concept. The large number of homeless, unemployed, and starving is unparalleled anywhere in the 1st world. Where all the other 1st world economies have developed some sort of social net to prevent these unnecessary and quite stupid misexploitations of the populace.

Furthermore where I grew up (Oregon, Eugene specifically) we were at around 12% poverty by 1998 (http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/edmat/html/em/em8743/introduction.html) (when the national and local economy was "good." How do you think it is now? I'll give you a hint, it didn't get better.) Furthermore Eugene has some of the highest municipal unemployment rates in the states while being homebase to several national and multi-national companes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene%2C_Oregon) while Oregon I believe is the 8th highest unemployed state. (http://www.bls.gov/web/lauhsthl.htm). You'd expect these kinds of numbers in the Developing world, but not in fuckin' Oregon.



Capitalism and natural selection are exactly the same, Darwin would have made a good capitalist. If you have a company that doesn’t make any money…. It dies, (generally speaking). Profitable companies grow.
Now here you just sound stupid. Every economy before capitalism has always claimed to be grown out of a natural order of things. The monarchies reflected the hierarchy of wilderness (Hence things like "King of the Jungle" etc.) While you could even say that communism has reflections in nature as well (when you see in what ways animal communities interact.) I very much doubt Darwin would have been a good capitalist, as far as we can see, he was a good scientist. Profitable comanies are not always profitable because of superiority in product, which breaks your comparison's spine right there.

Killer Dwarf
10-12-2006, 12:38 PM
Profitable comanies are not always profitable because of superiority in product, which breaks your comparison's spine right there.

What? I said “profit” not best product. Who cares if they are selling dirt for gold prices. It’s the money stupid.

OMG you have been a busy beaver!

You have too many points to respond to. So I will start with the last one.
Which form of gov’t is closely related to nature? I would have to say capitalism.

Commies: Where in nature do some animals own everything? Where the weaker animals give to their masters? None.
Socialists: Where in nature do the stronger give to the weaker for the common good of the animal kingdom?
Capitalism: There are no rules in nature, if you can eat the weak… you do. Larger companies “eat” the little ones. Better products give your company a better chance of making it into the next calendar year, which means more money (hopefully). Look at the company that made buggy whips in the 1800’s. That company looked good when horses ruled that day, but I doubt that company is in business or it if is, it doesn’t make buggy whips. Animals if they don’t evolve into thicker fur they died out in the ice-age. 99% of all species that once lived on Earth are extinct.

I didn’t say if their profit was from a better product. I just said, if a company is profitable that company can pay their bills and stay awhile longer. The bottom line in capitalism is if you can make money “eat” you will survive the next day.

wheelchairman
10-12-2006, 12:43 PM
You skipped Feudalist, which has the ordered structure of the animal kingdom so to speak. Hence the terminology animal kingdom. Every rule has compared itself with nature. Your opinion on what is closest is irrelevant. This is not up for debate, this is fact. Every form of rule has justified it's existence through nature. Legitimacy is a very important ideological question, for all ideologies. So it's only *natural.*

Where in the animal kingdom do you see animals using shady marketing to sell a worthless product? Where in the animal kingdom do you use animals hiring other animals to do work and thus benefiting (whether mutually or not is irrelevant.)

I mean you can turn it around, Socialism, in the animal kingdom do you not see wolves that hunt in packs where everyone in the pack gets a share? This is the literal definition of Socialism as it was practiced in the Soviet Union (at least the theoretical definition.)

I mean the debate is irrelevant because it simply is rhetoric to create legitimacy. If you can recognize that fact, you will go extremely far in your social science classes.

RickyCrack
10-12-2006, 12:49 PM
needs more anarkkky1!

Killer Dwarf
10-12-2006, 12:51 PM
I mean the debate is irrelevant because it simply is rhetoric to create legitimacy. If you can recognize that fact, you will go extremely far in your social science classes.

If the "debate is irrelevant" does that mean your done "debating" me? Or will continue debating me in this "irrelevant debate"?

Killer Dwarf
10-12-2006, 12:55 PM
My point is, the government doesn't interfere with companies to make money. Yes they do tax them, yes there are laws to keep them from doing bad things. It's not a perfect world.

I challenge you to pick a form of gov't that is the best. And then I will nickle and dime you why your choice is stupid.

There will never be a perfect gov't. Too many people bitch and moan that the gov't isn't perfect.

RickyCrack
10-12-2006, 12:55 PM
If the "debate is irrelevant" does that mean your done "debating" me? Or will continue debating me in this "irrelevant debate"?

I would "say" that the "irrelevance" of "the" topic is "irrelevant." Thus making the "topic" "irrelevant" to the "point" that the "topic" has "become" "irrelevant." So "in" short, "if" you "stop" "debating" me, "that" means "I" "win" the "debate" because "you" stopped "debating" a "topic" that you have "deemed" "irrelevant" thus making the "debate" "irrelevant."


faggot.

wheelchairman
10-12-2006, 01:03 PM
My point is, the government doesn't interfere with companies to make money. Yes they do tax them, yes there are laws to keep them from doing bad things. It's not a perfect world.

I challenge you to pick a form of gov't that is the best. And then I will nickle and dime you why your choice is stupid.

There will never be a perfect gov't. Too many people bitch and moan that the gov't isn't perfect.

As per irrelevance, see RickyCrack for what would be a more eloquent version of what I would have said.

And what is your point then? I thought we were discussing economies. In fact you started out claiming that the capitalist economy worked perfectly, as seen in America. I merely countered that America had one of the worst 1st world capitalist economies out there. And that Western Europe seemed to be able function with a capitalist economy and some form of social net as well, without crumbling. And I even bothered to back up my stats from the US with sources.

No one mentioned government. You are just side stepping the point entirely.

Way to avoid the topic altogether.

Killer Dwarf
10-12-2006, 01:43 PM
And what is your point then? I thought we were discussing economies. In fact you started out claiming that the capitalist economy worked perfectly, as seen in America. I merely countered that America had one of the worst 1st world capitalist economies out there. And that Western Europe seemed to be able function with a capitalist economy and some form of social net as well, without crumbling. And I even bothered to back up my stats from the US with sources.
No one mentioned government. You are just side stepping the point entirely.
Way to avoid the topic altogether.

I'm the one that started the topic. I didn't say it worked perfectly. Where did I say perfectly? huh? Don't say "you started out claiming" when I didn't cuz that makes you a liar, and that means i just won the debate. Dwarf 1 wheel 0.

Sin Studly
10-12-2006, 01:54 PM
I just thought I'd point out that there are cop-hating law-hating anarchists out there who are being logical and whose views make sense. They're known as gangsters.

Anarchy ; it's good for ultraviolent biker gangs with razor-wire fortresses and heavy machine guns.

Anarchy ; it's not quite as good for skinny middle-school white kids with Pentiums.

wheelchairman
10-12-2006, 03:24 PM
I'm the one that started the topic. I didn't say it worked perfectly. Where did I say perfectly? huh? Don't say "you started out claiming" when I didn't cuz that makes you a liar, and that means i just won the debate. Dwarf 1 wheel 0.


You are naïve, especially by using the word “main”. The poverty rate in the USA is 12%. But you said “poorness” not poverty. You would think the country that was built on capitalism would have the largest segment of poor people. Look at the poorest countries in the world, they are not capitalist. Those countries are poor because of economic reasons or inadequacies of their government.
No you didn't use the word perfect. You just present it as the only possible and viable form of economy in the world. Despite the fact that for 70 years the second most powerful economy was it's opposite. So yes, you claimed that capitalism was the "perfect" (not to be taken literally, what a fool way to pick at an argument. Instead of debating the content, you pick at some miniscule mistranscription to avoid the issue, again.)

And now you declare yourself the winner of the debate. Are you that insecure? "oh jeez... I forgot what we were talkin' 'bout, 'haps I should declare myself the winner."

Killer Dwarf
10-12-2006, 04:44 PM
Hmm, you're a real piece of work, but I definitely did something to eerk you and for that....... I think is very funny.

I like what you said "Any fool can pick an argument".

wheelchairman
10-12-2006, 04:46 PM
I never said that. You really don't read what I write do you? And I'm not irked, I just don't get why you bother to reply if you have nothing of value to say. Especially when I was expecting you to be smarter.

Killer Dwarf
10-12-2006, 04:48 PM
No you didn't use the word perfect. You just present it as the only possible and viable form of economy in the world.

Um, I know you're probably already feeling bad about being wrong, but I didn't present it as the only possible and viable form of economy in the world.

I think I compared capitalism to natural selection.

wheelchairman
10-12-2006, 04:56 PM
Um, I know you're probably already feeling bad about being wrong, but I didn't present it as the only possible and viable form of economy in the world.

I think I compared capitalism to natural selection.

Yes as a form of legitimation. And before that you mentioned that the only succesful countries were ones that had a capitalist economy.

Killer Dwarf
10-12-2006, 06:06 PM
And before that you mentioned that the only succesful countries were ones that had a capitalist economy.

I did? where? I looked...
This is the 2nd time I called you on this. YOU keep saying I said stuff I didn't say. What about China they are successfull, yet they are a Communist country. I can't belive i would have said your quote when I don't even believe that. Come on man.

Venom Symbiote
10-12-2006, 06:53 PM
I think we're all getting a little too intellectual here. When the basic fact is that anarchy will never happen, human nature will see to that, why bother debating the theory behind it?

I mean, I could someday be proven wrong when there's a nuclear winter and we all start aover gain as mutated 5-eyed 3-armed reptilian lizard men tribes living how we want, but hey, until then...I'm right. It's never going to fucking eventuate.

Oh, and just another thing to add to the discussion: Karl Marx was a douchebag.

Look, I don't mind people discussing Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Feudalism, Eskimoism, whatever, we have living examples of those (well, yeah, Feudalism up until recently anyway). But Anarchism is a 13 year old's wet dream.

"Oh, mommy won't let me play videogames 'til past 10pm and eat ice cream! Waaah! SCREW THE OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT WHO GAVE THEM THE IDEA TO ENFORCE RULES WITH THEIR KIDS! I waannnaa cooookkkiiieee!"

Goddamned 8th grade gimps.

There's rules, you obey 'em. You question the basic fundamental laws (I'm not talking specifics, I'm talking the overall principles here...against murder/violence/rape/etc) as you do, you should be punished.

There is seriously too much freedom of thought in the western world. I want to start a random organisation that just goes around smacking up protesters. 'Twould be hilarious.

XYlophonetreeZ
10-12-2006, 07:34 PM
There is seriously too much freedom of thought in the western world. I want to start a random organisation that just goes around smacking up protesters. 'Twould be hilarious.

Then again, if fucking message boards on the Internet serve as the primary outlet for the stupidest of these free thoughts, like anarchic ones, this already points towards the fact that we're doing pretty well. Most of the idiots are too chickenshit to go any further, and they damn well should be. Because in the real world, provided there isn't actually anarchy, stupidity gets naturally selected out. Either the idiots grow up and realize that they've wasted years of their lives on delusions, or else they get excluded and never succeed, or else they grow the balls to actually DO something stupid instead of just whine on the Internet, and then they get fired/expelled/arrested/shot/whatever. Freedom of thought is fine. I guess you could argue that protesters could disturb the peace to the point where there is actual danger if they get enough numbers, but that argument is pretty effectively shut down by the fact that it's probably even more likely for something like that to happen by extreme thinkers on the opposite end of the spectrum (i.e., fascists).

Oh, and Karl Marx wasn't really a douchebag. Just most of his followers have been.

SkunkIt
10-12-2006, 08:57 PM
what do u think about anarchy????is it possible in our times

I refuse to have an intelligent conversation with someone who can't spell out a three letter word, I'd even let the horrible punctuation go. Besides, this question has been asked a million times before and is a cliche. On the other hand, I will post something that amuses me:


http://www.merch-bot.com/images/products/lifestyle/large/a-anarchy-leather-wallet.jpg


I love the irony. It's kind of like a Von Dutch shirt.

Night
10-12-2006, 10:15 PM
Of course, anarchy is possible. Just look at the events, which took place in Ukraine in 2004... Or in Georgia the next year:) Isn't it anarchy?:)

Sin Studly
10-12-2006, 10:33 PM
Living in a third world shithole with rigged elections is different to living in anarchy.

Tigger Army
10-12-2006, 11:57 PM
thus the answer is:

yes, that isn't anarchy

Venom Symbiote
10-13-2006, 12:28 AM
Living in a third world shithole with rigged elections is different to living in anarchy.


He speaks the truth.

If you want to be politically correct and use your "preferable term" of an ex-Soviet fuckbox land of hairy titties (ah, eloquence) as anarchy, go ahead.

But it's not exactly accurate.

wheelchairman
10-13-2006, 02:14 AM
I did? where? I looked...
This is the 2nd time I called you on this. YOU keep saying I said stuff I didn't say. What about China they are successfull, yet they are a Communist country. I can't belive i would have said your quote when I don't even believe that. Come on man.
Yes you did, here you go:


You are naïve, especially by using the word “main”. The poverty rate in the USA is 12%. But you said “poorness” not poverty. You would think the country that was built on capitalism would have the largest segment of poor people. Look at the poorest countries in the world, they are not capitalist. Those countries are poor because of economic reasons or inadequacies of their government.


Quit pussyfooting around.