|
Anonymous
|
Re: Anarchy [Re: ]
#1507629 - 04/30/03 12:45 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
for your anarchist utopia to work, there cannot be ANYONE who doesn't respect liberty. all it takes is one person to bring the whole thing down. you're absolutely right in saying that if people weren't forceful and respected liberty, then anarchy could work. if that were true, anarchy would be the only system even POSSIBLE. the thing is, people are NEVER going to be like that. it's not as though violence and force is a passing fad or cultural phenomenon. they have been a part of EVERY human group in EVERY place and time. there have been times and places where government has been absent. we see in these situations that power is quickly grabbed up by the strong and imposed upon the weak. this has been the story of human government for as long as there have been humans. anarchy does not last. a child is reared into being a thug, a thug isn't born....under the circumstances in which people must struggle to survive, we welcome thugs, and also welcome them to our prisons. we do not welcome thugs in our society. only in your anarchy would thugs be welcome. no, quite 100% correct. people are brought up to believe the "law" is the right moral code. ask someone a question that defys morality, and that is also against the law.... the person will answer "because its against the law" more than he will say "because its not right". no they are not. your assertion that laws teach people what they know about morality is wrong. people are well aware that what is just and what is law are often two different things. give people a little more credit. we all know that the greatest attrocities ever commited were totally legal. we all know about slavery, the jewish holocaust, stalinism, etc. we have seen governments faulter time and time again. what they make law and what is right are two different things. this is plain to see by anyone who understands the events of just the past century. this should not be seen as a call for an "end to government", but for a just government founded with the intent of defending liberty from its foes. in your view of anarchy, is there not an unwritten "law" against forceful coersion of other individuals? certainly there is; this is the essence of anarchy. but who enforces this "law"? you will say that individuals are to be trusted to voluntarily respect this "law", ignoring the simple fact that they WILL NOT. what do you think people have been doing for the past 2 million years? simply stated, anarchy does not exist. it is a myth. there is no such thing as anarchy. the very idea of anarchy is a paradox.
Edited by mushmaster (04/30/03 03:56 PM)
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
|
Re: Anarchy [Re: ]
#1507714 - 04/30/03 01:09 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
***clap, clap, clap***
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Anarchy [Re: ]
#1507814 - 04/30/03 01:37 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
they have been a part of EVERY human group in EVERY place and time.
Do you have any evidence for this? 99% of human existence was based around a hunter gatherer lifestyle in small groups of around 30. Groups of 30 where everyone is needed to do their part for the group do not survive unless everyone is pulling in the same direction. Violence and fighting each other is totally counter-productive and would ensure rapid extinction.
If you are so convinced people are by nature violent why do so many people feel good by helping others? Do you get more of a buzz out of helping someone or beating them to death? Most of us prefer helping someone. This suggests your theory that human groupings are naturally violent and based on force has some serious flaws.
this has been the story of human government for as long as there have been humans
Government didn't exist for 99% of human existence.
ignoring the simple fact that they WILL NOT. what do you think people have been doing for the past 2 million years?
Don't confuse the history of the last 5000 years with the last 2 million. They arn't necessarily the same. The last 100 years - when laws and governments have been at their most powerful - were also the most violent in human history.
-------------------- 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]
#1507839 - 04/30/03 01:44 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Do you have any evidence for this? 99% of human existence was based around a hunter gatherer lifestyle in small groups of around 30.
Hey Sound Bite Boy.... did I miss it or are we still waiting for you to back this up?
-------------------- 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
|
Azmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 19 years, 1 month
|
Re: Anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1507873 - 04/30/03 01:54 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
they have been a part of EVERY human group in EVERY place and time.
Do you have any evidence for this? 99% of human existence was based around a hunter gatherer lifestyle in small groups of around 30. Groups of 30 where everyone is needed to do their part for the group do not survive unless everyone is pulling in the same direction. Violence and fighting each other is totally counter-productive and would ensure rapid extinction.
The tribes didn't fight amongst themselves alex. They warred with each other!..and brutaly at that! When food became scarce, they would go murder the next village over, down to the last child and elderly person, and take what they had. In times of boutiful hunting, tribes traded for goods and food. It has to do with population, space, and food supply. Also in the tribe the leader often was so, because of force ie: the strongest, most intimidating.
Quote:
If you are so convinced people are by nature violent why do so many people feel good by helping others? Do you get more of a buzz out of helping someone or beating them to death? Most of us prefer helping someone. This suggests your theory that human groupings are naturally violent and based on force has some serious flaws.
Some people DO prefer beating someone to helping them!....more than we may realise. This suggests your theory that human groupings are naturally peaceful and based on working together may have some serious flaws.
-------------------- "Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source. Lest we forget. "
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1508004 - 04/30/03 02:32 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
now you're an expert in the field of pre-historic anthropology and sociology? Government didn't exist for 99% of human existence. hahaha... that's a good one al.... kindof like how england once controlled 75% of the world? Don't confuse the history of the last 5000 years with the last 2 million. They arn't necessarily the same. The last 100 years - when laws and governments have been at their most powerful - were also the most violent in human history. not true. there have always been governments. whether they've been small chiefdoms or modern nations, they've still been governments. if you think government was something invented in the past 5000 years, you need to rethink yourself and do a little reading. there has been so much death and destruction during the past 100 years because there has been such great technological advancement (new, terrible weapons) and population increase (exponentially greater numbers of people to fight and die). governments have been waging war for as long as they have existed. government holds no more power of the lives of citizens than it always has. in fact, it has less. regardless, we no longer live in hunter-gatherer societies, so the point is moot.
Edited by mushmaster (04/30/03 03:55 PM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1508019 - 04/30/03 02:38 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
If you are so convinced people are by nature violent why do so many people feel good by helping others? Do you get more of a buzz out of helping someone or beating them to death? Most of us prefer helping someone. This suggests your theory that human groupings are naturally violent and based on force has some serious flaws. my view of human nature is not as pessimistic as you may think. people are generally good and do look out for eachother. i'm not saying that all people are bad, or even that the majority are. i'm just saying that in a population of any reasonable size, there will be at least ONE person who would rather use force than respect liberty, and that's all it takes.
Edited by mushmaster (04/30/03 03:56 PM)
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Anarchy [Re: Azmodeus]
#1509872 - 05/01/03 12:15 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
When food became scarce, they would go murder the next village over, down to the last child and elderly person, and take what they had.
Hunter gatherer groups don't hoard food so this didn't happen. Hoarding food came in around 5000-10,000 years ago, along with the rise of armies and police to protect the people hoarding the food.
It has to do with population, space, and food supply
The estimate I read was each group of 30 had around 100,000 square miles to live in. Are you going to go to war and risk destroying your group with that kind of space all around you? What would be the point?
Some people DO prefer beating someone to helping them!....
Not enough to say that it's human nature. Far, far more preferring helping each other. The most likely explanation for the ones who don't is the nature of society rather than human nature.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1509905 - 05/01/03 12:27 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
even within hunter-gatherer groups, there was forceful coersion. regardless, this point is still irrelevant to the discussion of anarchy in modern society. we no longer live in such groups.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Anarchy [Re: ]
#1509913 - 05/01/03 12:29 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
not true. there have always been governments. whether they've been small chiefdoms or modern nations,
LOL! What kind of government do you have in hunter-gatherer groups of 30 people?
governments have been waging war for as long as they have existed.
Which isn't very long at all. Warfare is generally agreed to have started around 5000-10000 years ago when people stopped living in the hunter-gatherer style and started hoarding food - making war worthwhile. For 99% of human history there was no government and no war.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Anarchy [Re: ]
#1509923 - 05/01/03 12:32 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
even within hunter-gatherer groups, there was forceful coersion
Doubtful. Once you start breeding resentment in groups of 30 and even one person stops playing their part in the hunt, the hunts fail and the group dies out. You have to base them around collective agreement and equality, otherwise extinction beckons.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Anarchy [Re: ]
#1509932 - 05/01/03 12:33 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
this point is still irrelevant to the discussion of anarchy in modern society. we no longer live in such groups.
The point you were making is human beings are somehow "naturally" violent and force has always played a role. This is obviously largely down to the nature of society we have created - not human nature.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1509933 - 05/01/03 12:34 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
LOL! What kind of government do you have in hunter-gatherer groups of 30 people?
typically there is one guy who's called the "head honcho".
Warfare is generally agreed to have started around 5000-10000 years ago when people stopped living in the hunter-gatherer style and started hoarding food - making war worthwhile.
by who? any source for this little gem?
For 99% of human history there was no government and no war.
i am not talking about government or war. i am talking about the initiation or force by one individual upon another. this has been going on for as long as there have been people.
we can argue all day about what pre-pre-historic man did. we no longer live in simple, subsistance communities of "30 people". things are very different now. what's your point?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1509956 - 05/01/03 12:39 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
"The point you were making is human beings are somehow "naturally" violent and force has always played a role. This is obviously largely down to the nature of society we have created - not human nature."
i will say again that i do not believe humans are violent by nature. i will say that out of 6,000,000,000 people, if there is one who prefers force over persuasion as his means, there can be no anarchy.
let us pretend for a moment that there was indeed no violence in hunter gatherer societies. why do you think this may have been so?
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Anarchy [Re: ]
#1509983 - 05/01/03 12:45 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
typically there is one guy who's called the "head honcho".
Source?
by who? any source for this little gem?
Read up on hunter gatherer lifestyles. Hunter gatherers by their definition follow herds. If you are moving all the time you cannot have many possessions. What is the point of war in such a situation? You risk killing and injuring vital members of your group for nothing. Once people stopped moving and started producing surplus food, war has a reason. This happened around 10,000 years ago.
things are very different now. what's your point?
That for 99% of it's existence humans lived in groups based around sharing and equality with no government or warfare. Your idea that "We need George Bush and the cops to protect us from each other" doesn't have a lot of history to back it up.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1510066 - 05/01/03 01:02 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
alex, i think you are very much misunderstanding me. i would like to read up on hunter gatherer soctieties. could you provide a link to where you've been getting your information? in very small communities, where material culture and technology is so simplistic that people are just barely getting by, there are few, if any, personal possessions. this does of course drastically reduce the incentive for people to steal from eachother. people were equal because they ALL HAD NOTHING. we no longer live that way. the difference is that we have an accumulation of wealth in our society, whereas hunter gatherer groups did not. they did not because they could not. now we can, and we do. some people have less than others, and some people steal and kill. if preventing individuals from initiating force upon eachother rests on economic equality, how, without using force, would you suggest redistributing wealth so that people are once again economic equals? i never stated anything about needing george bush and his police to protect us. i do not like george bush, the laws he stands behind, or the police force he commands. he is not a defender of freedom. he is a crooked politician. why do you put words in my mouth?
Edited by mushmaster (05/01/03 01:10 AM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?



Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1510399 - 05/01/03 03:43 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
typically there is one guy who's called the "head honcho".
Source?
Still waiting for the source of your claim as regards the "groups of 30".
-------------------- 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
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
#1511581 - 05/01/03 02:07 PM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
are you going to answer any of the questions in the post above?
|
|