|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Very weak but sadly typical of you.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1346407 - 03/02/03 08:30 AM (21 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
The only weak response here is yours Alpo. The first definition is always the most common usage. Since I have little doubt you won't take my word for it, e-mail any publishers of dictionaries. I'm confident they'll tell you the same.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1346489 - 03/02/03 09:05 AM (21 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Yes it is sad you are unable to ever admit an error in your very weak reasoning and I am typically one of the many who points it out to you.
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
Edited by Evolving (03/02/03 09:05 AM)
|
yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
|
I still don't think the two latter definitions have anything to do in this discussion, but as long as you agree they are not synonomous with the kind of anarchy we are talking about, it's ok for me, at least...
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
#1346671 - 03/02/03 10:33 AM (21 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
What kind of anarchy are we talking about?
-------------------- Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
|
Can't really speak for everyone else, but I'm sure we're not talking about pure fucking armageddon, violence in the streets and no order whatsoever. I, myself, believe in small communities of people who are devoted to live in peace and harmony with each other, without laws and governments. I don't think this would work on a large scale, because if there's too many people involved, someone will take the lead and booh yah. Small hippie communities forever! Damn, I'd like to live on that easy rider farm:)
|
yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: sever]
#1346949 - 03/02/03 01:11 PM (21 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
One of the first arguments for a "free state project" on that site, is no gun laws. Sounds like someone should think about more than their own desires to "protect" themselves, and watch bowling for columbine. I don't believe in anarchy for the sake of keeping all the guns and popping all the pills one wants, but to avoid a government.
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
#1347173 - 03/02/03 02:47 PM (21 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think this would work on a large scale
I hate to tell you, but our population is a large scale, and getting larger by the minute. So what do you propose we do to "thin" the population?
-------------------- Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
|
Quote:
So what do you propose we do to "thin" the population?
I believe our President and various other religious/power hungry fanatics are working on that problem as we discuss this.
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Yes it is sad you are unable to ever admit an error in your very weak reasoning and I am typically one of the many who points it out to you
So you still believe all those dictionary defintions of anarchy are a correct and accurate description?
At least we know why your "arguments" are always so weak - your only knowledge of a subject comes from websters dictionary
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1347540 - 03/02/03 06:05 PM (21 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
We? Who's this we you speak of? I, for one, do not want to be included in this we, cause if I we were betting on this argument, I'd put my life savings in with Evolving.
-------------------- Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1347541 - 03/02/03 06:06 PM (21 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
At least we know why your "arguments" are always so weak - your only knowledge of a subject comes from websters dictionary
Evolving is one of the most skilled debators I have ever seen. Unlike you, he provides hard evidence to support his points, and backs it up with links. His arguments always appear to be well thought-out, and I've never seen him get caught off-guard by anything, even your pathetic posts where you delude yourself into thinking you've done just that. It's because of all this that despite the fact that my political views are closely alligned with yours, I have far more respect for him.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Try and focus on a point rather than your dislike of me. Do you agree that his list of dictionary definitions are an accurate and correct description of anarchy?
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1347549 - 03/02/03 06:09 PM (21 years, 22 days ago) |
|
|
I agree with his definition over the definition you provided, oh wait, you didn't provide any. Weird.
-------------------- Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^what he said.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
Edited by silversoul7 (03/02/03 06:13 PM)
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
|
-------------------- Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
|
^^^^^^^^What THEY said. And silversoul and I don't agree on much.
-------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
Edited by Innvertigo (03/02/03 11:04 PM)
|
yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
|
hehe, sad but true... but i (can't remember) saying anything about the solution to everything. I think it would make a cool experiment for people who would participate in the society, but really nothing more... in a long time, at least. Free states are great initiatives, altough I didn't get a good first impression of the one mentioned earlier.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Try reading the thread. This is what I said:
You're missing the point. For the vast majority of human history eople worked for the welfare of the group. Not for selfish greed and self-interest. That's the essence of anarchism not capitalism.
This is what evolving blundered in with:
That's the essence of fantasy, not anarchy. Anarchy's generally accepted meanings are... 1. the complete absence of government and law. 2. political disorder and violence: lawlessness. 3. disorder in any sphere of activity. Syn. - lawlessness, disorder, tumult, rebelion, riot, insubordination.
After most of these definitions were shown to be inaccurate, except the absence of government (which was a given already in the context of this discussion), could you explain what "point" evolving was attempting to make?
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1348126 - 03/03/03 04:08 AM (21 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
The point Alex is that anarchy (in the political sense) is the complete absence of government and law, 'the absence of a master, of a sovereign,' or 'no ruler.' It would seem logical that anarchy is the natural state of human society before the first established government. However, there is no convincing evidence that prior to the first government all people lived in peace and harmony, sharing all things equally. Of course humans worked and continue to work oftentimes for the welfare of the group and will share things within groups. Due to the physically weak nature of our species, this is necessary for the survival of the individuals within the group and the survival of the species as a whole. However, this does not preclude actions of selfish greed or self-interest. Ancient human remains have been found showing evidence of human violence. Our closest relatives, the chimpanzees have been observed to murder and rape each other. More importantly, there is ample evidence in human history of groups engaging in violence motivated by greed or group interest against lone individuals or other groups.
I fully support the concept of anarchy or self-government as a political ideal. I have seen no evidence of any government or constitution which has acted as a permanent safeguard against human designs of some to dominate others. I trust no government. By the same token, I cannot trust anarchy, for power abhors a vacuum and an absence of a government would leave a society at the mercy of a power hungry individual or group of individuals in that society or an external threat from other more agressive people who do not share the society's peacful intentions. Indeed, it can be said that the first governments originally arose out of such circumstances and the history of governments since then have been of power struggles to control who will live off of the productive enterprises of the general populace, or to throw off these controls and safeguard against such domination.
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
|