View Poll Results: Is Ancrhcy.....

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • Gay

    17 45.95%
  • Smart

    20 54.05%
Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 140

Thread: ANarchy

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    631


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacknife737 View Post
    Although it may have some merits, the democratic peace theory is full of shit.
    Well yeah, the theory isnt waterproof. Although the theory that Nazi Germany would be a democracy isnt either.
    =======>CLICK HERE IF YOU DONT FEEL LIKE CLICKING ANYWHERE ELSE!<=======

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,090


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Satanic_Surfer View Post
    Anarchism was there way before punk. And it was probably as rebellious by then. At least considering anarchist history. Anarchy is as much the lack of government as it is the lack of the monetary system wich in turn makes capitalism impossible.

    All the talk about rape and murder is just silly. Nothing says there are no rules in an anarchist society. Thing is that the they're not upheld by a state and rather than a representative democracy, the anarchist society would use a form of direct democracy. Anarchy is a form of democracy, one where the participation of the people is broader than today. But Somalia is as much anarchist as the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic.

    If there is anything that shows that anarchist societies would've been plagued by rape and murder to any higher degree than any other society, i'd gladly take a look at that information. I dont see why a society would accept such.
    Ok... you do realize that what your describing isn't anarchy. It is, as I've said earlier, a utoian democracy with no authority to enforce itself. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that a system was created where we all participate and debate in some kind of ancient greek athenian style democracy adapted for the 21st century. And lets pretend that even though there is a system in place... this is somehow still anarchy because nobody, in theory, has more power than the next person. We all get together and vote on whats best for us. What exactly makes this system work? the collective good of people? No, human nature is not so that millions will go along with whatever is asked for the greater good. And once you create any authority to enforce anything at all, well fuck, thats a governing body right there.


    YOU PEOPLE ARE NOT ANARCHISTS. You describe various utopias. Some are socialistic. Some are very democratic. Some are skeletal governments. Some are just plain retarded. But they are all a form of government none the less. Anarchy is:

    –noun 1. a state of society without government or law.
    2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
    3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
    4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.


    Notice number three. It is a THEORY that proposes Cooperative and VOLUNTARY association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.... the idea that society as a whole would voluntarily do anything is insanely naive. This country couldn't even get people to pay the basic income tax untill we had invested in systems to enfore taxes. You think me or anyone else is gonna get up in the morning and bust my ass for the greater good? Fuck no. It is a shitty theory that DOESNT WORK on a large scale.

    Any one government or leader can be as imperfect as anybody else. But I'd rather take that over the collective imperfections of every individual combined. Governments will always be imperfect and have their flaws. But the better ones provide stability. It is within that stability that we have the oppertunity to grow as a society, and as individuals to better society within the system, or better the system itself. In anarchy, we are left to fend for ourselves. you don't have to be an expert on human nature to know thats exactly what people will do. When the violent and criminal are left unchecked, even the best of people will ultimately do whatevers necessary to protect themselves and their families. Thats not a formula for prosperity.


    One last time. You people aren't anarchists. An anarchist is:

    1. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
    2. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

    We all have our idea of what an ideal society would look like. As soon as you start describing it though, your not advocating anarchy, but rather some naive untopia. Would you all just stop already?

  3. #43


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IamSam View Post
    Somalia works because:
    A: It has an absence of government
    B: It is in a state of lawlessness and political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

    and

    C: Somalia is a utopia for individuals in charge (warlords) enjoying their freedom without the government.

    Somalia is in anarchy. Period. End of argument.
    I am going to have to disagree with you on this matter.

    I was there in 1988 and what you had was not anarchy. You had warring factions who each had their own form of government. Mostly dictatorships, each faction had its own form of law what they thought they believed was the right thing to do or were told by their leader or warlord. Yes there were small pockets of anarchy but that is present in any war environment. But we had several times when we visited a village and the rules were no guns then the next week everyone was armed, and their was a new warlord in charge. I remember one village we visited where they killed everyone in the village because they were flying the wrong flag. The local warlord had died the week before and the new warlord who had moved in wanted to make them an example to any others who did not follow his rules.

    So each of these warlords had formed their own governments, in their own region. So by what you are saying is that the dictators are the anarchists? This makes no sense, each of the warlords make their own rules hence they are the government for their region.

  4. #44


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacknife737 View Post
    That's not true. Here are a few examples, and there are a lot more, believe me.

    The American Civil War - Both the North and the South had democratically elected governments

    War of 1812 - US and UK = democracies

    World War I - Germany, although arguably not a "proper" democracy by todays standards, it still had a democratically elected parliament (or whatever they call it there) vs Britain, France both of which are democracies

    World War II - Germany (Hitler was elected to power) vs Western Liberal Democracies

    Kosovo 1999 - NATO (a collection of democratic countries) vs Federal Republic of Yugoslavia a democracy.

    2008, Georgia vs Russia

    Although it may have some merits, the democratic peace theory is full of shit.

    The American Civil War - Both the North and the South had democratically elected governments

    True Mostly

    War of 1812 - US and UK = democracies

    False – UK - Constitutional Monarchy

    World War I - Germany, although arguably not a "proper" democracy by todays standards, it still had a democratically elected parliament (or whatever they call it there) vs Britain, France both of which are democracies

    False – UK - Constitutional Monarchy
    France - Republic

    World War II - Germany (Hitler was elected to power) vs Western Liberal Democracies

    False – by the start of WW II Germany was a dictatorship (Hitler had outlawed all other political parties)

    Kosovo 1999 - NATO (a collection of democratic countries) vs Federal Republic of Yugoslavia a democracy.

    False - Kosovo – Republic
    Nato – a bit of everything

    2008, Georgia vs Russia

    False - Russia is a Federation
    Georgia - Democratic Republic

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Northwest United States
    Posts
    4,069


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pyrimid View Post
    I am going to have to disagree with you on this matter.

    I was there in 1988 and what you had was not anarchy. You had warring factions who each had their own form of government. Mostly dictatorships, each faction had its own form of law what they thought they believed was the right thing to do or were told by their leader or warlord. Yes there were small pockets of anarchy but that is present in any war environment. But we had several times when we visited a village and the rules were no guns then the next week everyone was armed, and their was a new warlord in charge. I remember one village we visited where they killed everyone in the village because they were flying the wrong flag. The local warlord had died the week before and the new warlord who had moved in wanted to make them an example to any others who did not follow his rules.

    So each of these warlords had formed their own governments, in their own region. So by what you are saying is that the dictators are the anarchists? This makes no sense, each of the warlords make their own rules hence they are the government for their region.
    Metalmania: This is how you do it! Learn from him young grasshopper!

    Pyramid: I'll get back to you on this. You have me intrigued as you've been there. I'll get back to you tomorrow. Right now I'm too tired and a little too tipsy to deal with this!
    "There are no fools more bothersome than those with wit"

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    631


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Al Coholic View Post
    We all have our idea of what an ideal society would look like. As soon as you start describing it though, your not advocating anarchy, but rather some naive untopia. Would you all just stop already?
    What is your source for your meaning behind the word "anarchist"?

    Truth is your definition of the word "anarchist" is simply wrong. Anarchy and order are the two basics of anarchism, wich is why you may have noticed the A for Anarchy circled in an O for Order. There is nothing chaotic about it.

    There is a reason for that. And there is a reason that anarchy and disorder are two seperate words, because they do not have the same meaning and are in fact unrelated. If you want to make disorder an "ism", be my guest. But dont tell me who i am.
    =======>CLICK HERE IF YOU DONT FEEL LIKE CLICKING ANYWHERE ELSE!<=======

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Denver-Metro, Colorado (The City of Dis)
    Posts
    1,521


    Default

    Any argument for anarchy is retarded, bottom line - period.

    I do, however, advocate anarchy as a bridge toward a better democracy, in America. Propaganda by the deed is, in my opinion, a reasonable means to get ride of a leader who is unfavorable and weak for the nation.

    PUT OFF THE FUSS YOU CHICKENSHIT

    Quote Originally Posted by ilovellamas View Post
    I really wanna think this was sarcasm... but I don't remember adombomb ever being much of a sarcastic guy... :-/
    Quote Originally Posted by Cock Joke View Post
    Turn on - vaginas

    Turn off - cox

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    698


    Default

    Anarchos(a grek word): an-archos:without chief(without government,without army)anarchism is not a simple idea.it has a long history with giritian zeno(i can say that he was first anarchist philosopher and his theories against platon's state idea)
    anyway anarchism has 2 different view inside it:1. individualistic anarchism(you can see it in usa anarchists) 2.socialist or communist anarchism(in europe,in asia) the root is anarchism is workers and crushing classese like proleteria.bakunin,proudhon,kropotkin,errico malatesta,emma goldman(red amma)....they re really telling this idea.this idea against the capitalism ,emperialism and governments.no governments!no bourgeois.cause government is the power of authority.and its against special property.

    somebody says"hey anarchism is chaos" its a big lie.cause its nor true. this idea a perfect utopia cause anarchism says:freedom,brotherhood,solidarity!!!the centre of anarchism is individual but individual's freedom just can live with society's freedom so first person's freedom and after in this system society's freedom
    many anarchist writers say that"anarchism is the ungovernment socialism"hehe yep anarchism can resemble to socialism or communism(communism means scientific socialist view) but some sides re different like individualism ....

    i said that anarchism shelters different views inside:you can see the christian anarchists or agorist anarchism or primitivist anarchism:but they re all individualist anarko derivatives!and dont forget anarchism is against the relegion blocks like god's kingdom,jesus kingdom or other relegion kingdoms cause these methods take your free views and humanity becomes sheep gangs like in our times

    i said that its an idea of freedom,its not an idea of chAos.maybe sometimes chaos can live but it cant live 4eva!our world is living in killer,butcher governments's hands and humanity is seeing these wars these crimes with empty eyes!just minds,just smashing people can save this world.first nations's folks unite after,these people lifts the limits and nations unite in unlimited world.it seems so hard but people can try it(1848,1870,1905,1915....)and they did it.
    just freedom,brotherhood,solidarity!
    i said these speechs on 1.page but i must repeat again.i told history of anarchism and i told the derivatives of anarchism and i claim the black-red flag of anarchism.yes our world saw that democracy is a big lie and the biggest capitalist countries re using this term and they crush poor countries with this lie.they use the democracy word for just to exploit and they exploit their folks too!cause people's hungry,people has not money,people's unemployed and people cant think about these subject but reason of these all problem is capitalism and emperialism.cant you see it??so lets leave people free!these governments re just a puppet of oil-gas-weapon incs.you can say that anarchism and other liberastic(mean freedom) views re just utopia so i say that yeah i love this idea,i claim this idea until i die and this idea cant kill people,this idea does not even exploit a person!!!!bur your realistic order????yeah allworld is watching it
    "folks re our brother;governments re our enemy!!!! so viva free idea!
    Akıllı ol;ÇARŞI BURADA

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,090


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Satanic_Surfer View Post
    What is your source for your meaning behind the word "anarchist"?

    Truth is your definition of the word "anarchist" is simply wrong. Anarchy and order are the two basics of anarchism, wich is why you may have noticed the A for Anarchy circled in an O for Order. There is nothing chaotic about it.

    There is a reason for that. And there is a reason that anarchy and disorder are two seperate words, because they do not have the same meaning and are in fact unrelated. If you want to make disorder an "ism", be my guest. But dont tell me who i am.
    You're frustrating me with how many times we go in circles. After everything I said you're going to ignore it all and contuinue to describe some kind of naive, make believe utopia. You describe the end but not the means in any way. How does that make sense? What you're saying is, everyones just going to do the right thing because there is no government. You do realize that doesn't make any sense whatsoever? So to clear some things up:

    Define for me, a functional, productive, prosperous anarchy. Don't just paint up some fictional utopia where everyone does the right thing, give me a working model that actual makes sense, HOW you would achieve it, HOW you would overcome human nature, and HOW you can do all this WITHOUT creating a system of governance that enforces itself.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Winnipeg/The GTA
    Posts
    5,784


    Default

    @ pyrimid

    Constitutional monarchies, federations, republics ect, all involve forms of democratically elected governments. Obviously, today, very few countries are straight up “democracies”, but as far as the democratic peace theory is concerned, that is irrelevant. My point remains, is that given certain conditions, nations with democratically elected governments are more than willing to go to war against one another.

    As well, we're just splitting hairs if you want to argue whether or not the countries i mentioned are "democracies"' ie the UK may indeed be a constitutional monarchy, but it is also a parliamentary democracy, ect. This division is again, irrelevant to my point.
    Last edited by jacknife737; 12-27-2008 at 12:13 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Gabel
    Adrenaline carried one last thought to fruition.
    Let this be the end.
    Let this be the last song.
    Let this be the end.
    Let all be forgiven.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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