|
Anonymous
|
 anarchy 
#1335787 - 02/25/03 05:08 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
If i can image a world of peace, hope, and humanity living as one, why can't it happen? I'm thinking it right now, and i'm believing we can do it. Just have hope and faith in fellow man and one day it will be a reality.
Wars have always been justified and we are on the brink of another "justified" one. It almost makes me sick at the ignorance of it all. But I do have faith, I can dream the perfect world, the way it could and should be.. can you?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
#1335809 - 02/25/03 05:15 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Reality check: men desire power above all else :\
|
 Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
|
Quote:
Reality check: men desire power above all else :\
BINGO! That is why any utopian scheme is bound to attract the power lusters who will grab the reigns of power and guide the state apparatus towards their own end(s). ANY government, no matter how well intentioned its founding, must be guarded against and always mistrusted.
--------------------
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 (02/26/03 02:28 AM)
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
#1336667 - 02/26/03 03:44 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
For the vast majority of the human race's existence it did happen. There are no beggers and rich men in hunter gatherer society. Each person works totally for the welfare of everyone else. The last 5000 years are an abberation, which is probably why the world is in such a terrible state at the moment.
If we can survive this phase, where we have abandoned our fate to the scum bastards running corporations that are intent on destroying the planet for short term greed, our future looks bright. Humans naturally want to help each other - it's something that has puzzled the corporate boss's for many years. No matter how much they encourage selfish greed and hatred people still seem to prefer loving and caring for one another.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
sever
Where am I?
Registered: 02/02/03
Posts: 161
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1336837 - 02/26/03 04:43 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
~
Edited by sever (07/17/06 04:16 PM)
|
 Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1336856 - 02/26/03 04:54 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
The last 5000 years are an abberation, which is probably why the world is in such a terrible state at the moment.
Something that lasts for a brief while is an aberration, not something that has been the norm since the dawn of recorded history. Something last seen more than five millennia ago is extinct. Think of it as social evolution in action.
Humans naturally want to help each other -
Correct, which is why government-mandated social programs that can be maintained only through the initiation of force are clearly not necessary.
pinky
--------------------
Edited by pinksharkmark (02/26/03 05:04 AM)
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1336898 - 02/26/03 05:18 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I was actually just reading a book about pseudo-science, and it had a whole chapter about this ridiculous theory that the world lived in peace and harmony before society started to grow. I couldn't take the book out of the library though, 'cause I owe them too much in fines.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
Anonymous
|
|
Reality check: men desire power above all else :\
There are a lot of innate desires inside of us. We all have bloodlust and the desire to kill, but we as a whole have deemed it wrong and for the most part, we follow that natural law.
No person should be ruled over by anyone, under any circumstances... just as killing isn't acceptable under any circumstances. Anarchy won't just happen, it takes a concentrated effort to change some of your beliefs. We can overcome mans desire for power... the masses must believe power is wrong and corrupt, only then can we move past that obstacle and unto something else that stands in our way. Lets not put down the hope for peace and freedom because of an undesirable character of man.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: anarchy [Re: sever]
#1336985 - 02/26/03 06:00 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, sounds pretty interesting huh? I came across that a couple weeks ago and I was very excited. Its a huge step towards freedom, if it does happen, there is a good chance I will move there. I just hope the people involved will take it seriously and be a model of what this world can achieve.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
#1337047 - 02/26/03 06:26 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
There are a lot of innate desires inside of us. We all have bloodlust and the desire to kill, but we as a whole have deemed it wrong and for the most part, we follow that natural law.
No person should be ruled over by anyone, under any circumstances... just as killing isn't acceptable under any circumstances. Anarchy won't just happen, it takes a concentrated effort to change some of your beliefs. We can overcome mans desire for power... the masses must believe power is wrong and corrupt, only then can we move past that obstacle and unto something else that stands in our way. Lets not put down the hope for peace and freedom because of an undesirable character of man.
Thank 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.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Phred]
#1337175 - 02/26/03 07:40 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Something that lasts for a brief while is an aberration, not something that has been the norm since the dawn of recorded history.
The human race is around 2 million years old, homo sapiens anything up to half a million years old. Recorded history is what - the last 3000 years? I think you could still call that time frame an abberation compared to the hundreds of thousands of years humans lived in an anarchist society.
Correct, which is why government-mandated social programs that can be maintained only through the initiation of force are clearly not necessary.
No-one has to force me to pay tax to care for handicapped kids.
The only tragedy is that my tax is going on the Iraq war and funding big corporations.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1337217 - 02/26/03 08:05 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
There is evidence that even the first human beings had leaders. Even monkeys do, from which we evolved. Every single social animal on this planet has "leaders." It is necessary for order and the survival of the species.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
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.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1338708 - 02/26/03 06:25 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Actually, what existed prior to large governments would be more accurately described as feudalism than ararchy.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1339247 - 02/27/03 02:05 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
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.
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.
Source: Webster's Dictionary, unabridged, Second Edition 
--------------------
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
|
|
Actually, what existed prior to large governments would be more accurately described as feudalism than ararchy.
No, we're talking way before feudalism. Small groups of around 30 hunter-gatherers are most efficient when each member feels they have a say in the group. Start trying to divide into kings and slaves and it isn't going to work.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Evolving]
#1339402 - 02/27/03 03:57 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Anarchy's generally accepted meanings are...
Read around. Don't rely on websters dictionary for a definition of anarchy.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 18 years, 1 month
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1339406 - 02/27/03 04:00 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Small groups of around 30 hunter-gatherers are most efficient when each member feels they have a say in the group.
let's all divide into groups of thirty and see how that works out.
--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------
I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1339428 - 02/27/03 04:07 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
i'm curious, what is your definition or anarchy (not an exact definition, but just waht you think it is)?
webster, IMO hit it right on the head.
--------------------
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
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1339445 - 02/27/03 04:16 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Read around. Don't rely on websters dictionary for a definition of anarchy.
Dictionaries definitions are determined by studying the literature and common usage of the language. Are you saying that we should ignore commonly accepted usages of terms when trying to communicate? This seems to be a piss poor way of getting your ideas across. Perhaps you should re-evaluate you concepts of communication if you would like others to understand your ideas.
--------------------
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.
|
sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 18 years, 1 month
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Evolving]
#1339450 - 02/27/03 04:17 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Maybe he could write his own dictionary.
--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------
I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Are you curious to find out a real answer? Then read a few books by Emma Goldman. One sentence "definitions" don't really get the job done.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Evolving]
#1339457 - 02/27/03 04:19 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
common usage of the language
Exactly. The media use the term as another word for violence and rebellion. That's the common usage, it's not the correct usage.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 18 years, 1 month
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1339459 - 02/27/03 04:19 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Instead of changing the meaning of a word, why not just make up a new one to express what you want to say?
--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------
I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: sirreal]
#1339465 - 02/27/03 04:23 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Anarchy does fine for anyone who knows the first thing about it.
If your only knowledge of anarchy is what's in the dictionary you'll have problems.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 18 years, 1 month
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1339470 - 02/27/03 04:26 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If your only knowledge of anarchy is what's in the dictionary you'll have problems.
What problems might that be? please let me know so I can avoid them.
--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------
I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1339475 - 02/27/03 04:30 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So the common usage of terms should never be expected in discussions with Alex? We should all assume that what he says has a meaning different from that commonly assigned to words by society as a whole?
Perhaps, we have arrived at the crux of the matter of why so many people have developed a low opinion of your communication talents and why you consistently fail to obtain understanding for points you are trying to express.
Think about it.
--------------------
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.
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1339487 - 02/27/03 04:34 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
actually i was more interested in discovering YOUR idea of what anarchy is not Emma Goldman. I already know what it is and was wondering if your definition is the same...geez it was just a question.
--------------------
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
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Evolving]
#1339502 - 02/27/03 04:41 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So the common usage of terms should never be expected in discussions with Alex?
No, not never, just sometimes. Anarchy is a case where the common usage of a word doesn't relate to it's meaning. The common usage of "hallucinogens" to describe mushrooms isn't valid either. Try and think about what you write. Don't just knee-jerk into something because you're nursing a grudge against me. You simply look foolish.
why so many people
Don't run away with yourself son. There's just you and a few of your right-wing pals. Don't confuse that with the truth.
Think about it
Perhaps you should think about why you feel the need to pursue a childish grudge against someone you've never even met on a shroom board. Then look at your life and consider how empty it must be.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1339601 - 02/27/03 05:24 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Alex is correct that dictionary definitions of various political systems are sometimes incomplete. Dictionary definitions strive for concision rather than completeness. It would be better to consult a specialized dictionary (one of political terms), or -- in the case of anarchy -- to consult the anarchists themselves.
from infoshop.org --
-- Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon]
-- Change opinion, convince the public that government is not only unnecessary, but extremely harmful, and then the word anarchy, just because it means "absence of government"... [Proudhon]
-- As Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning "contrary to authority."
-- The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. [Brian Morris]
Note the dominant theme of all the above Anarchist thinkers -- no ruler, no authority, no dominance. In other words, no individual or group of individuals deciding what the others must do.
From this it is apparent that a band of thirty or so hunter gatherers with no chieftain or tribal council (or at least a band in which such entities refrained from any sort of direction of the band's actions) would be considered an anarchic society.
This begs the question of whether or not prehistoric societies did in fact organize (or, more precisely, didn't organize) themselves in such a manner. Since there is no written history or oral history from these people which provides any data on the question, any theory as to which politico-social organization such groups embraced is necessarily conjecture. Perhaps they had no leaders, perhaps they did.
Since virtually all species of primates have leaders and/or dominant individuals whom the pack follow, and since virtually all human societies with any histories remaining for us to study also have had leaders, it would be a bold and counter-intuitive step to presume that proto-humans or even early Homo sapiens sapiens had none.
Is it possible? Certainly. But "possibility" is not equivalent to fact. The truth is that until a "wayback" machine is invented and time travel is a reality, there is no way to say one way or the other.
pinky
--------------------
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Phred]
#1339607 - 02/27/03 05:36 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I agree. I wasn't trying to infer that anything he (alex) said was wrong but i find it iteresting when people say things are wrong but don't give an example of the "right" way to describe it. My idea of anarchy (from the hip) is a society with no laws and no governing body. Basically every man woman and child to themselves. Anarchy doesn't mean violence, chaos, and terror. Anarchy depends on the people within the Anarchy group. If you have 30 Utopians involved (which is pretty close to impossible) then there would be peace, love and a generally nice environment. Unfortunatly i believe this will never happen.
A better real-life scenerio would be crime, violence, natural selection etc. While these don't make up anarchy, i believe this would be the real world results of such a society when we take today's people as participants.
--------------------
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
|
Anonymous
|
|
According to Hobbes, the nature of man is chaotic, ruthless, and downright evil. It seems many people believe this, and I can see where they derive it from. The world we live in now is ruthless and evil, but why?
Forcing people into a straightjacket only leads to them being submissive and powerless. Their true feelings and beliefs are manipulated into believing a single ideology, and the persecution of those who offer a new way of life... this will definitely bring down all hope of a utopian society.
The goodness of humanity won't be seen through the current system of this world, but only when everything is stripped down to an individual in a sea of ideas and dreams. Humans can live peacefully if only given the chance to be free, and that will never happen unless we agree to bring down whats oppressing us.
Edited by LoOnEr (02/27/03 08:28 AM)
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1340093 - 02/27/03 08:35 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anarchy is a case where the common usage of a word doesn't relate to it's meaning.
Brilliant, your comedic sense is impeccable. This isn't a line from 'Dumb and Dumber' is it?
Quote:
Try and think about what you write.
Maybe you should heed your own words.
Quote:
Don't just knee-jerk into something because you're nursing a grudge against me. You simply look foolish.
What grudge? I point out sloppy thinking, that's all. If you can't communicate clearly with commonly understood meanings, what is the point of even entering into a discussion? Do you expect all of us to be mind readers and somehow know you're holding a concept for a word that is so uncommon that it isn't even in the dictionary?
Quote:
Don't confuse that with the truth.
The confusion arises when you assign uncommon meanings to words and then expect others to understand. If you want to be understood, use words the way they are used in society.
Quote:
Perhaps you should think about why you feel the need to pursue a childish grudge against someone you've never even met on a shroom board. Then look at your life and consider how empty it must be.
No grudge, I just have never been exposed to someone so entertainingly steadfast in his ignorance. I find it a pleasure to read your posts.
Please, continue to bring levity to these forums and entertain us with further expositions of your mental contortions.
--------------------
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 (02/27/03 10:33 AM)
|
yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 15 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Evolving]
#1340307 - 02/27/03 09:41 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Evolving: what's to argue about? Your definition of anarchy is commonly accepted, no doubt about that, but this discussion is about REAL anarchy, not chaos. If that confuses you, it's your problem. I'm sure if this started out as a thread about libertarian socialism, someone would have misunderstood that as well.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
#1340453 - 02/27/03 10:27 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Your definition of anarchy is commonly accepted, no doubt about that, but this discussion is about REAL anarchy, not chaos. If that confuses you, it's your problem.
Who's confused? The first definition I listed was, "the complete absence of government and law." That is REAL anarchy.
--------------------
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.
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
#1341275 - 02/27/03 04:44 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"The world we live in now is ruthless and evil, but why? "
Because it directly mirrors the animal world. Look at a group of chimpanzees. They act based on the same emotions as humans, and they fight one another all the time. People have always had the urge to be powerful and respected, and throughout the animal kingdom, the best way to do this is by showing ones physical dominance.
You're agruing that humans briefly lost this trait, and then suddenly regained it. This seems kind of odd to me.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Evolving]
#1341336 - 02/27/03 05:32 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
mental contortions
You've convinced me. You're not nursing a grudge... 
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Evolving]
#1341353 - 02/27/03 05:41 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Who's confused?
You are.
The first definition I listed
Here is what you listed.
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.
Do you consider these "generally accepted meanings" to be an accurate description of anarchy or not? Or are you now backtracking and desperately trying to say "only the first one is"?
Told you son, knee jerking into something because you're nursing a grudge against me isn't a good way of being taken seriously.
You're wrong and you know you are.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Phluck]
#1341963 - 02/28/03 03:12 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Because it directly mirrors the animal world. Look at a group of chimpanzees. They act based on the same emotions as humans, and they fight one another all the time. People have always had the urge to be powerful and respected, and throughout the animal kingdom, the best way to do this is by showing ones physical dominance.
So you think we should live our life like the animals? Sure we resemble them because of our need to survive through evolution, but we have a powerful brain that can make "right" and "wrong" decisions.
You're agruing that humans briefly lost this trait, and then suddenly regained it. This seems kind of odd to me.
No, I never said that. It has always been in us, but isn't it about time we stepped back from our primitive instincts and base our lives on meaningful beliefs?
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1346056 - 03/02/03 02:12 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
For those of us who know how to use a dictionary, it is understood that the first meaning listed is THE MOST COMMON USAGE (keep this in mind if you ever happen to use one). The first meaning listed is the most accurate one in relation to this discussion.
--------------------
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
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Evolving]
#1346227 - 03/02/03 06:21 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Very weak but sadly typical of you.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,248
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1346407 - 03/02/03 08:30 AM (22 years, 3 months 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 (22 years, 3 months 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: 15 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Evolving]
#1346501 - 03/02/03 09:11 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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: 20 years, 2 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
#1346671 - 03/02/03 10:33 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What kind of anarchy are we talking about?
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 15 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Skikid16]
#1346932 - 03/02/03 01:03 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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: 15 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: sever]
#1346949 - 03/02/03 01:11 PM (22 years, 3 months 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: 20 years, 2 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
#1347173 - 03/02/03 02:47 PM (22 years, 3 months 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
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Skikid16]
#1347301 - 03/02/03 03:40 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Evolving]
#1347523 - 03/02/03 05:45 PM (22 years, 3 months 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
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: 20 years, 2 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1347540 - 03/02/03 06:05 PM (22 years, 3 months 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 (22 years, 3 months 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: 20 years, 2 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1347549 - 03/02/03 06:09 PM (22 years, 3 months 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
|
 Re: anarchy [Re: Skikid16]
#1347552 - 03/02/03 06:12 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^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: 20 years, 2 months
|
|
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Skikid16]
#1347787 - 03/02/03 10:57 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
^^^^^^^^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: 15 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Skikid16]
#1347975 - 03/03/03 02:24 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
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 (22 years, 3 months 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.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Evolving]
#1348169 - 03/03/03 04:21 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The point Alex is that anarchy (in the political sense) is the complete absence of government and law
So you agree that none of the other dictionary definitions you listed are accurate?
"2. political disorder and violence: lawlessness.
3. disorder in any sphere of activity.
Syn. - lawlessness, disorder, tumult, rebelion, riot, insubordination."
When I said anarchy wasn't about "violence" and "tumult" you insisted that it must be because that's what the dictionary said. Indeed you spent a good few posts "insulting" me because I rejected these definitions.
The rest of your post isn't really relevant to anything we've been discussing up to now.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1348207 - 03/03/03 04:36 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Jesus Christ man, are you devoid of all ability at reading comprehension? I stated previously, "For those of us who know how to use a dictionary, it is understood that the first meaning listed is THE MOST COMMON USAGE (keep this in mind if you ever happen to use one). The first meaning listed is the most accurate one in relation to this discussion." I listed all the defintions word for word and in the order of usage as they appear in the dictionary. Why is this concept so hard for you to get your mind around?
Quote:
When I said anarchy wasn't about "violence" and "tumult" you insisted that it must be because that's what the dictionary said.
Please Alex, show me where I insisted that anarchy is about "violence" and "tumult." I did no such thing, see above.
--------------------
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 (03/03/03 04:38 AM)
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Evolving]
#1348211 - 03/03/03 04:37 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
you're never going to win ya know....it's understood that Alex lives in his own world with a lot of twinkling lights.
--------------------
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
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Evolving]
#1349184 - 03/04/03 07:18 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I listed all the defintions word for word and in the order of usage as they appear in the dictionary.
And I told you they were inaccurate whereupon you got hysterical and said i was insane because I didn't agree with the dictionary definitions of anarchy.
Are you now saying I was right after all and that those dictionary definitions are innacurate? Or are you clinging onto this bizarre stance you've tried to adopt that "Actually I only meant the first one and all the other definitions i listed are wrong"?
show me where I insisted that anarchy is about "violence" and "tumult."
Look again at your first post in the thread. You state quite clearly that "the generally accepted meanings of anarchy are:". Below this you list a series of definitions including the worlds violence and tumult. This isn't rocket science evol.
Why do i get the feeling I'm wasting my time...
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 20 years, 2 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1349209 - 03/04/03 07:26 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Why do i get the feeling I'm wasting my time...
At least you're beginning to see how we feel when it comes to dealing with you.
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Skikid16]
#1349229 - 03/04/03 07:34 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Do you have any other purpose apart from following me around and making childish remarks? You must really think I care
Have you ever made an on-topic post?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 20 years, 2 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1349245 - 03/04/03 07:41 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You don't answer the questions, so you don't get answers to your questions......
Sooo, Alex, how are you doing today?
Why don't you answer the questions?
That seems pretty on-topic.
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Skikid16]
#1349272 - 03/04/03 07:48 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Since when have I ever asked you a question? I couldn't care less whether you live or die so it's not likely I'm going to be asking you too many questions.
That's enough attention for you anyway. You're more than likely some 12 year old on his daddys computer getting a thrill out of this.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 20 years, 2 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1349287 - 03/04/03 07:52 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I couldn't care less whether you live or die so it's not likely I'm going to be asking you too many questions.
Didn't you just accuse me of posting childish remarks?
Ummm....Alex, you still have yet to answer the questions.....why don't you be a good boy and answer them for us. I promise you can have some milk and cookies after you answer them.
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1350405 - 03/04/03 02:50 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
And I told you they were inaccurate whereupon you got hysterical and said i was insane because I didn't agree with the dictionary definitions of anarchy.
Please look up the definition of 'hysterical.' You obviously are mistaken about the meaning and use of another English word.
Quote:
Are you now saying I was right after all and that those dictionary definitions are innacurate? Or are you clinging onto this bizarre stance you've tried to adopt that "Actually I only meant the first one and all the other definitions i listed are wrong"?
I am saying you are wrong and were wrong all along, I was responding to your inaccurate description of the 'essence' of anarchism, "... (p)eople worked for the welfare of the group. Not for selfish greed and self-interest. That's the essence of anarchism not capitalism" Your description does not fit with ANY common meaning of the word. I suggest you ask a qualified adult how to use the dictionary.
Now, I am going to type this s-l-o-w-l-y and I will repeat points previously made so you will understand...  - All the dictionary definitions are correct.
- Dictionary meanings are listed in order from most common to least common usage.
- The first meaning listed is THE MOST COMMON USAGE and is the meaning that is appropriate to this discussion. Please note that it does not support your description of the 'essence of anarchism.'
- Quoting the defintions listed in the dictionary in response IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THAT ALL THE DEFINITIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THE CURRENT DISCUSSION. No where, at no time did I state that all the definitions listed were applicable to the discussion. Only someone pathetically unfamiliar with the proper use of a dictionary or a severe reading handicap would assume this.
- Listing definitions is in no way insisting upon a particular definition or portions thereof. I suggest you also learn the definition of 'insist' and it's various forms so you may more accurately use it in the future.
It's true this isn't rocket science Alex, it has to do with reading comprehension and a basic understanding of how to use reference materials. Unfortunately, these things appear to be beyond your abilities or desire to learn.
Thank you for the continued entertainment. In an age where royal courts and the accompanying jesters can seldom be found to provide comic relief, you are a true blessing. Please continue to beat this dead horse.
--------------------
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
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Evolving]
#1350653 - 03/04/03 05:06 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Your description does not fit with ANY common meaning of the word
That you can find in websters dictionary...
All the dictionary definitions are correct.
So you DO think anarchy is violence and tumult. Why didn't you just say this in the first place? Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of anarchy would be able to inform you this is inaccurate
As pink pointed out, standard dictionaries are not the best place to get your definitions of political thought from.
Please continue to beat this dead horse.
Now you've admitted that you believe anarchy means violence and tumult we can lay it to rest. If only you had said this 10 posts ago.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1350666 - 03/04/03 05:15 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So you DO think anarchy is violence and tumult... Now you've admitted that you believe anarchy means violence and tumult we can lay it to rest.
Are you REALLY that incapable of comprehending what you read? I will state it again but I'm sure you will be unable to comprehend, the first meaning listed is THE MOST COMMON USAGE and is the meaning that is appropriate to this discussion. Additionally, my witless friend, the other meanings are valid, but not in this context.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
--------------------
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
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Evolving]
#1350718 - 03/04/03 05:47 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Are you REALLY that incapable of comprehending what you read?
No, but it appears that you are.
the other meanings are valid
Is anarchy "violence" and "tumult" or not?
but not in this context
In what context do you think violence and tumult are accurate descriptions 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: 20 years, 2 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1350753 - 03/04/03 06:04 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Thus an "anarchist" is A violent and destructive opponent of all government; a nihilist
There's the first result from a query in Google, keywords.... anarchy violence tumult.
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 15 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Skikid16]
#1351444 - 03/05/03 03:14 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
defining anarchsists as violent... no comment
why don't we let this word game rest, and discuss how anarchy would work etc, rather than definitions. I'm sure we all agree that "real" anarchists are not (necesarrily, or however that's spelled) violent, and the definition alex started this thread with, altough it's not a proper dictionary definition, is pretty much how things would have to be, should an anarchy work in real life.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
#1351480 - 03/05/03 03:39 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
At last some common sense!
Nice post yelim.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 20 years, 2 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
#1351639 - 03/05/03 04:58 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I'm sure we all agree that "real" anarchists are not (necesarrily, or however that's spelled) violent,
I don't agree at all.
Quote:
and the definition alex started this thread with, altough it's not a proper dictionary definition, is pretty much how things would have to be, should an anarchy work in real life.
I think what he defined fit communism more than anarchism.
We can't discuss how anarchism could work because it wouldn't. Its just like discussing Communism, while the idea is a nice and pretty, practical application is near impossible because of human nature.
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Skikid16]
#1351746 - 03/05/03 05:39 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Skikid16 writes:
I don't agree at all.
The thing is, it is not necessarily that the Anarchists themselves are violent. The problem is that the Anarchists have no objective body of law codified which specifies how the violent are to be handled, and no impartial body authorized to handle them. No government necessarily means no courts, no police, no prisons, no military.
As long as everyone behaves themselves, all is well. But as soon as any individual or group of individuals (either from within the community or from outside it) chooses to assert themselves through force, the members of the Anarchist society have no option but to deal with it individually or through temporary "posses".
This is why the term "anarchy" has been traditionally associated with chaos and violence and disorder -- not because those who follow the ideal of peaceful and voluntary co-operation are themselves violent, but because those who don't are, and the Anarchists' only option is to either be eliminated or to respond in a haphazard manner -- one Anarchist may choose to simply shoot the offender(s), his neighbor may choose to try to capture and imprison the offender, another group of neighbors may choose to drive off the offenders and post a guard at the border, etc. Because there is no universally-accepted method of dealing with transgressors, it really boils to down to "every man for himself", or "every gang for itself".
We can't discuss how anarchism could work because it wouldn't.
I must disagree. I believe it is possible for Anarchism to work in small groups of very dedicated, like-minded individuals.
Its just like discussing Communism, while the idea is a nice and pretty, practical application is near impossible because of human nature.
I disagree on two counts: it is neither nice nor pretty, but it WILL work (at least for a while) providing the State has no qualms about exerting force on its citizens.
pinky
--------------------
|
yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 15 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Phred]
#1352167 - 03/05/03 08:46 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
thanks, wonderfull post!
and skikid, if you think we can't discuss how anarchy would work, i really don't see the point in discussing anarchy at all. but here we are... if you don't like it, fine. have a cracker.
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 20 years, 2 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
#1352183 - 03/05/03 08:56 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Ok, lets discuss. You find an area of land that is void of a governing body, existing infastructure, or a population no larger than 30.
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
psilo25
The one stuck inthe middle ofthis hopelessmess.
Registered: 03/03/02
Posts: 244
Loc: over here
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Phred]
#1352814 - 03/05/03 01:35 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
...the members of the Anarchist society have no option but to deal with it individually or through temporary "posses".
These "posses" you speak of form solely for the need of self-defense when another group or groups threatens their survival. They have no choice but to form these groups since there is no local, state, or federal police force to attempt to reestablish the peace. In an anarchist state, this would occur on a rather frequent basis, as various individuals and groups would seek domination. Eventually, the individuals in these groups would all recognize the need to form a permanent alliance in order to assure their security. As time goes on, these groups would continue to fight for domination, and larger alliances will be formed amongst groups with common interests and goals. Thus the seeds of government have been sown........
Quote:
I must disagree. I believe it is possible for Anarchism to work in small groups of very dedicated, like-minded individuals.
These "small groups" would in effect become the "posses" spoken of above. Thus, anarchy is virtually impossible, at least for any extended period of time. The formation of various forms of government is part of human nature.
Quote:
I disagree on two counts: it is neither nice nor pretty, but it [communism] WILL work (at least for a while) providing the State has no qualms about exerting force on its citizens.
The very existence of a state to exert force on its citizens is a violation of communistic principles, as defined by Karl Marx. According to his vision, the need for a government would eventually disappear, and people would pretty much share of their own good will. There is no such thing as a truly Communist state in existence today.
--------------------
Stand up for your freedoms, join the fight against the War on Drugs!
www.drcnet.org
www.drugpolicyalliance.org
www.drugsense.org
|
yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 15 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: psilo25]
#1353546 - 03/05/03 11:36 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
These "small groups" would in effect become the "posses" spoken of above. Thus, anarchy is virtually impossible, at least for any extended period of time. The formation of various forms of government is part of human nature.
a posse against who? If it's a small isolated group (free state) of equally minded people, there would be no need of such a posse. this might very well work, see the anarchy.org faq for examples...
|
psilo25
The one stuck inthe middle ofthis hopelessmess.
Registered: 03/03/02
Posts: 244
Loc: over here
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
#1353764 - 03/06/03 03:02 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
a posse against who? If it's a small isolated group (free state) of equally minded people, there would be no need of such a posse. this might very well work, see the anarchy.org faq for examples...
Okay, so we'll assume that this free state of equally minded people is completely isolated from all other groups of people. I suppose for a short time a small anarchist state would exist. But given enough time, conflicts will arise within this group. Eventually, people would be looking for a figure of authority to help resolve these conflicts as peacefully as possible. That person will eventually become their leader, until another proved to be more effective. It's simply human nature--humans are social animals. We travel in groups, and all groups have leaders. As soon as this leadership position is filled, anarchy ceases to exist.
--------------------
Stand up for your freedoms, join the fight against the War on Drugs!
www.drcnet.org
www.drugpolicyalliance.org
www.drugsense.org
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: psilo25]
#1353837 - 03/06/03 03:50 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It's simply human nature--humans are social animals. We travel in groups, and all groups have leaders.
Small groups of around 30 don't tend to function if one guy dictates what everyone else does and takes more than his fair share. The rest of the group are likely to fall out with the dictator, refuse to take part in hunts with any enthusiasm and the group rapidly dies out. Leaders more usually emerge when they have police and armies to back them up. In small groups of 30 dictatorship isn't a workable concept.
The only way it works is if everyone feels valued and everything is shared equally. Which is more than likely how human hunter-gatherer societies worked for many hundreds of thousands of years.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
psilo25
The one stuck inthe middle ofthis hopelessmess.
Registered: 03/03/02
Posts: 244
Loc: over here
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1353967 - 03/06/03 04:50 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I never said that the leader of the group had to be a dictator. The leader would simply serve as a source of order, discipine, and unity. In such a small group, a dictator would be overthrown very quickly, and a new leader would quickly be chosen to better serve the will and needs of the group.
--------------------
Stand up for your freedoms, join the fight against the War on Drugs!
www.drcnet.org
www.drugpolicyalliance.org
www.drugsense.org
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 20 years, 2 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
#1354094 - 03/06/03 05:46 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
a posse against who? If it's a small isolated group (free state) of equally minded people, there would be no need of such a posse. this might very well work, see the anarchy.org faq for examples...
So you have a small group (how many equals small? 30? 40?) And you have males and females in the group, naturally, some of the males and some of the females will form couples.
When people form couples, they usually display some means of affection, one of those means is sexual intercourse. A nasty side effect of sexual intercourse is it makes babies.
So lets say there were 7 couples in the group of 30, well they have an average of 2 kids each couple. Well now the groups number is up to 44, then with the next generation it will inevitably go up. Most likely, the birth rate will be higher than the death rate, so..... you will loose this small group.
The only way to maintain the small group is to have some sort of control on birth rates, so some consensus would have to be formed among the group as to who should and should not have children. Wouldn't a ruling consensus defeat the purpose of anarchy?
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 15 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Skikid16]
#1354127 - 03/06/03 06:03 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
oooh, another scary dictionary quote... on dictator:
1 a : a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome b : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively
2 : one that dictates
not that it really matters here, but a dictator is not necesarily against the people, definition is only one having absolute power.
But... as I said... I don't think anarchy is the ultimate solution, but a cool idea that for a short period of time, with a small community (probably more than thirty, perhaps hundreds, even a few thousands) of devoted people, would work pretty well, perhaps better than most forms of a government. When the community starts to grow beyond control, and new ideas and an opposition arises, a government might have to be the only solution. But for a while, it will work. Those who oppose anarchy might even move out, and traditionally, anarchists and those who sympatize with them, live quite different from most people. I don't think a capitalist would ever settle in christiania, and if he/she was born into it, he/she would probably move out. It should not be too difficult to move away from such a small community, as you don't have to move far. And that goes for the isolated part to. I don't believe, in the relatively sivilized world we live in today, that any country would go to war on a small, peacefull anarchist society.
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 20 years, 2 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
#1354667 - 03/06/03 09:20 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
. I don't believe, in the relatively sivilized world we live in today, that any country would go to war on a small, peacefull anarchist society.
So Norway is where dreamland is located, eh?
I think you are way too much of an optimist, not saying that is a bad thing, if anything, it is a good thing and more people should be like you, but I do think you are a little out of touch with reality.
I think there are many more evil people out there that would find some reason to attack the small, anarchist group, if for no other reason, to display dominance.
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
Anonymous
|
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
#1354743 - 03/06/03 09:42 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
If i can image a world of peace, hope, and humanity living as one, why can't it happen?
because people will come along and take control and impose their will upon other people. until no such people exist, we'll have to have governments here to protect us from such people.... or at least that's what government should be about.
government is not necessarily a bad thing. ideally, the government is here to protect our freedom, and never to take it away. you have more freedom under a good government than under "anarchy". i mean... if "anarchy" means that people aren't allowed to force their will on others... then the government's job is to essentially just 'preserve anarchy'... it is only when "government" becomes synonymous with "control" (and unfortunately, it usually has been) that "anarchy" becomes 'lack of government'.
|
yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 15 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Skikid16]
#1354766 - 03/06/03 09:55 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Damn... civilized, civilized. And I don't think Norway is so much more civilized than the rest of the western world (No pro-west propaganda here, just the fact that if western countries feels the urge to wage war nowadays, they do so in the middle east or Africa). You'd probably know better than me, but I still don't think a free state in the US would suffer much external agression. Remember, we're still talking relatively small and isolated, shouldn't be much of a bother to anyone.
Edited by yelimS (03/06/03 09:56 AM)
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
#1354773 - 03/06/03 09:57 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
governments here to protect us from such people
But what if surrendering our fate to a small power elite ensures the destruction of the human race and the planet? Which appears to be the case? I have doubts we're going to last another 1000 years at the rate we're going.
Do we simply continue to abdicate responsibility and hope our masters will save us all?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 15 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
#1354793 - 03/06/03 10:06 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
government is not necessarily a bad thing. ideally, the government is here to protect our freedom, and never to take it away. you have more freedom under a good government than under "anarchy". i mean... if "anarchy" means that people aren't allowed to force their will on others... then the government's job is to essentially just 'preserve anarchy'...
ha ha, I like your thinking  However, I fear a corrupt government more than individuals. Individuals who disturbs the peace are far easier to stop, and tough stopping someone who opposes the community is quite anti-anarchistic, a corrupt government is just as anti-governmental. No one is perfect, and I like to choose the lesser of two evils, which I in small communities believe to be anarchism. For a country of millions, I'd go for some socialist government.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1354798 - 03/06/03 10:07 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
But what if surrendering our fate to a small power elite ensures the destruction of the human race and the planet?
then we are in very dire circumstances indeed. this power elite is not there to protect our rights; they do not serve in the legitimate role of government...
I have doubts we're going to last another 1000 years at the rate we're going.
of course we aren't. things are going to change alot. they have to. time will tell just how though...
Do we simply continue to abdicate responsibility and hope our masters will save us all?
no we don't. we do everything we can to foster a legitimate government which properly serves in it's only valid role, as a protector. sometimes this may include writing letters. sometimes it may include attending demonstrations. sometimes it may be running for office. maybe someday we will need to violently revolt. america was originally founded with the idea of a minimal government which served only in a "protector of freedom" role in mind. we've moved very far from it.
unfortunately, we are continuing to move farther away from the ideal government and closer and closer to a larger, more omnipresent and powerful establishment. usually at the hands of crooked "conservatives" or well meaning, but ultimately self-defeating liberals.
when it comes to government, i say smaller is better.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
#1354822 - 03/06/03 10:18 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If i can image a world of peace, hope, and humanity living as one, why can't it happen?
because people will come along and take control and impose their will upon other people. until no such people exist, we'll have to have governments here to protect us from such people.... or at least that's what government should be about.
government is not necessarily a bad thing. ideally, the government is here to protect our freedom, and never to take it away. you have more freedom under a good government than under "anarchy". i mean... if "anarchy" means that people aren't allowed to force their will on others... then the government's job is to essentially just 'preserve anarchy'... it is only when "government" becomes synonymous with "control" (and unfortunately, it usually has been) that "anarchy" becomes 'lack of government'.
You understand the dilemma quite well. Governments will arise out of anarchy, as is evidenced by human history. So we should find some way to preserve as much of anarchy as possible while keeping some minimal mechanism to fend off those who would attempt to obtain power and control over others (some people use the term 'minarchist' to describe this viewpoint). However, it is difficult to find a historical example of a government (no matter how well intentioned it's founding) that didn't grab increasingly more power and eventually ruin the source of it's power by suffocating the freedoms and draining the wealth of its populace. (I see this as the future history of our current U.S. government - ALL great nations/civilizations fade after a time.)
--------------------
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.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
#1354835 - 03/06/03 10:25 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
yes, but if a government were established, with its only purpose, as explicitly outlined in its constitution as: to protect the people from violent attacks and to mediate and resolve civil disputes... how could it be corrupt? how could it be corrupt without clearly and obviously stepping outside its constitutional duties? we have corrupt government now because the government is in bed with the market, and host of other reasons, typically caused by the fact that the gov't is large and 'does a lot of stuff'.. the government plays alot of other roles than as a "protector". it is big, complicated, and yes, corrupt.
a system could indeed be established and sustained in which the government simply 'preserved anarchy'... kept people from imposing their will upon others. in 'anarchy' as "no government" there is no one to prevent people from imposing their will upon others... this is not a situation in which anyone enjoys much freedom.
it was from anarchy (meaning here, no government), that the most oppressive, totalitarian despotisms and tyrannies first evolved. (i'm speaking of the monarchies and dictatorships of times long ago). a few hundred years ago, some people started thinking about government and some folks got sick of that and realized that the only real purpose of government is to protect freedom... and set out to create a system in which that was the case. we've gotten off track though.
it is possible to form a government which performs it's only true function, and does it well. unfortunately... there's no place we can go to try it out.
For a country of millions, I'd go for some socialist government.
you do know that socialism requires a large, powerful, central government which forcefully imposes high taxes on the people? socialism is pretty damn far from anarchy.
Edited by mushmaster (03/06/03 10:27 AM)
|
yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 15 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
#1354863 - 03/06/03 10:48 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I don't consider taxes to take a toll on my personal freedom. I believe it is necessary for any large community to have a national income (taxes) to pay for hospitals, education and so on. However, with the abuse of taxes, military budgets, etc. that we have today, I see your frustration.
And I think I misunderstood what you maent by a government, I thought you to be against all forms of anarchism. A "minarchy", as described by Evolving seems to me like a great idea, I've thought of it before and don't know why I've forgotten to mention it here. Some government, given as little power as possible, and open for anyone to join, could be a great way to control an anarchy. Additionally, I am not against taxes in an anarchy (probably wouldn't be a 'real' anarchy, but still... ), by anarchy I think giving the power back to the people, but I don't consider economic freedom anywhere near as important as other freedoms. Who's going to pay for hospitals and education if no one has to?
Hmm... I think my reasoning is becoming a little weird. It be late. Must sleep. Gollum, gollum. Please ignore this post if you disagree:)
taxes=good if not abused
control=good and necessary
power to state=bad
power to the people=good if controlled
free the weed=damn im tired
|
Anonymous
|
Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
#1354900 - 03/06/03 11:11 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I don't consider taxes to take a toll on my personal freedom.
i think that being forced to buy something i don't want to buy is certainly a toll on my freedom.
I believe it is necessary for any large community to have a national income (taxes) to pay for hospitals, education and so on.
all of these functions could be provided more cheaply and more effectively by the private sector.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
#1355499 - 03/06/03 05:17 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
all of these functions could be provided more cheaply and more effectively by the private sector.
Never seems to work that way. Once your sole goal is profit all sorts of terrible things happen to the people you're supposed to be caring about.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 20 years, 2 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1355660 - 03/06/03 07:18 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
all of these functions could be provided more cheaply and more effectively by the private sector.
Never seems to work that way. Once your sole goal is profit all sorts of terrible things happen to the people you're supposed to be caring about.
Alex, have you studied economics at all? I ask because of posts like this, it seems as though you have no grasp on reality......
Ok, so you think because goods and services are provided for a profit and not out of goodwill they are more expesive and less effective. Am I right?
So you think if things were done out of goodwill and less profit, they would be done cheaper and less effective?
Are you saying that you would prefer a more socialistic society?
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
|
yelimS
bohem
Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 15 years, 5 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
#1355835 - 03/06/03 11:20 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
They could perhaps. If hospitals and education could be privatized, and still be free to those who can't afford them, I'm all for it. But my "dreamland" Norway used to be a very socialistic country, and still is more than most other, but people are thinking more and more profit. That has NOT improved standards.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
#1356190 - 03/07/03 03:42 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Privatisation has been tried for the last 20 years in the UK. The railways were privatised. There were a series of horrendous accidents because spending on safety cutsprofits, fares exploded, directors became millionaires. Eventually it ended up such a dangerous unmitigated disaster the government bailed the private firms out with billions of taxpayers money and now intend to run them on a non-profit basis.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1356265 - 03/07/03 04:15 AM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
i don't think that it is the government's place to run any business. however, they not only have the right, but the obligation, to enact safety regulations and the like.
Edited by mushmaster (03/07/03 04:25 AM)
|
BleaK
paradox
Registered: 06/23/02
Posts: 1,583
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
#1356668 - 03/07/03 05:54 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
How about we just get over the worry about violence and crime... WE ALREADY HAVE IT! life feeds on life... death is just as important as life. im willing to die for someone elses life if they are willing to try and kill me.
I also dont think its nessisarily the only option. i think i have the ability to live peacefully, and not steal, or kill other people, or fuck with anyone in any way that they dont like, intentionally. And i think all people have that ablility.
Knowlage only follows experience. Rules that forbid people to have experiences of any kind are only hinderences to evolution.
EDIT;
I realize i kinda swayed off topic a little. but i was reading back further about violence and murder and shit... couldnt get through EVERYONES posts.. i'll work on it.
--------------------
"You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma
Edited by BleaK (03/07/03 05:57 PM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: anarchy [Re: BleaK]
#1356709 - 03/07/03 06:09 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
How about we just get over the worry about violence and crime... WE ALREADY HAVE IT! life feeds on life... death is just as important as life. im willing to die for someone elses life if they are willing to try and kill me.
if you don't mind getting killed for your wallet, fine. but the rest of us have a reasonable expectation to be free from violent attacks.
I also dont think its nessisarily the only option. i think i have the ability to live peacefully, and not steal, or kill other people, or fuck with anyone in any way that they dont like, intentionally. And i think all people have that ablility.
very true... the next step will be when you realize that that just isn't how shit works. some people want to steal stuff and some people want to kill other people... until there are no such people, there must be some mechanism in place to forcefully stop them from acting. yes.. in a perfect world.... with perfect people... things would be just perfect.
Knowlage only follows experience. Rules that forbid people to have experiences of any kind are only hinderences to evolution.
what kind of experience do you mean? will human evolution be detrimentally effected because i have not experienced getting mugged? will the growth and learning that a rapist undergoes while raping a young girl have a positive impact on our collective experience and evolution?
it is not ok for people to mug eachother... or murder eachother, or violently attack eachother in any way. to do so is to unjustly impose your will upon someone else. it's exactly what anarchists and libertarians abhore.
|
BleaK
paradox
Registered: 06/23/02
Posts: 1,583
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
#1356740 - 03/07/03 06:23 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"what kind of experience do you mean? will human evolution be detrimentally effected because i have not experienced getting mugged? will the growth and learning that a rapist undergoes while raping a young girl have a positive impact on our collective experience and evolution?"
Yes.
--------------------
"You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma
|
Anonymous
|
Re: anarchy [Re: BleaK]
#1356759 - 03/07/03 06:32 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
i would like to repeat...
it is not ok for people to mug eachother... or murder eachother, or violently attack eachother in any way. to do so is to unjustly impose your will upon someone else. it's exactly what anarchists and libertarians abhore.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
#1356761 - 03/07/03 06:32 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
there must be some mechanism in place to forcefully stop them from acting
This sounds like the drug war arguments mush. Do you think if we legalised drugs there would be chaos in the streets with millions of people turning into heroin addicts? Or would most people cope perfectly well with legal drugs?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1356766 - 03/07/03 06:36 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
This sounds like the drug war arguments mush
the difference here is that when i smoke a joint, i am not violating anyone else's rights. it's different when i mug someone. i am arguing that people should not be allowed to violently attack eachother. do you disagree?
Do you think if we legalised drugs there would be chaos in the streets with millions of people turning into heroin addicts?
not at all. i fully support drug relegalization. i do not however, support murder legalization, or rape or assault legalization.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
#1363116 - 03/10/03 12:09 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Anarchy is based on individuality, and the freedom of individuals. There is no need for a "mechanism" such as police, laws, gov't... in order to maintain peace. This mechanism is inside all of us, and is the final and absolute restriction.
|
Psilocybeingzz
Registered: 12/15/02
Posts: 14,463
Loc: International waters
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
#1364231 - 03/10/03 09:05 PM (22 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Anarchy is based on individuality, and the freedom of individuals. There is no need for a "mechanism" such as police, laws, gov't... in order to maintain peace. This mechanism is inside all of us, and is the final and absolute restriction.
NO ALWAYS TRUE !
the anarchy thats callad anarco-syndicalism(spelling)
has police ETC ETC
BUT PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER !
this is the anarchy I want (so does Noam Chomsky who I highly respect!)
|
Psilocybeingzz
Registered: 12/15/02
Posts: 14,463
Loc: International waters
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
|
you want to know about this topic???
www.TAO.ca!!!!!!
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 all )
Teotzlcoatl
glowing
psychedelicbath
shivas.wisdom
Ole Field Trashe
Yellow Pants
airclay
lines