POLITICS

[SchnidlersLeest]

I don't like anarchism. It's too much of an idealistic state of mind. Anarchists like to say that without a government the people can rule themselves and therein lies the issue.

So your improvisation is to have people ruled by others? :p

Then the strong, better armed and more violent will ''lead'' the people. As much as I dislike all the governments i've been under, they're a lesser evil compared to anarchism.

Unfortunately, having a government does not fix this. Creating a place where massive amounts of power can consolidate becomes a beacon for violent people who want to control and subjugate others, and that power to control people is maintained because people respect the violence of the government, as they believe that it keeps them safe.

I haven't been a fan of a SINGLE north american government. Ever. Not once in my life. But they're a reality and you learn to live with it. Kind of like living with a personal flaw or illness: you recognize it, you try to fix it however you can, but at the end of the day it is what it is.

Right, you would want to try to fix any illness you're suffering, just as you would to fix a personal flaw, but at the end of that day you would want that illness GONE. It's not like you want to have a little illness left, or a little of a personal flaw left. I agree there's only so much you can do, but I wouldn't argue for staying sick just because you're afraid what would happen without your illness.

---

anarchism would never work

I think this needs to be examined as to understand what it actually means, by the definition of the word.

"A society with no rulers would never work."

We also don't know what "works" means. Does a society that "works" use violence to get what they want? What exactly "works"? Is it in the Roman pragmatic sense, to progress a society by all means necessary, including the deaths and slavery of others? Believe it or not, western civilization has advanced quite a bit further past what the Romans achieved, and that was actually accomplished through giving more freedom to people. So in the pragmatic sense, anarchism is still more efficient in theory, as it gives the most freedom to people; complete freedom from rulers.

---

It would be lovely if something like anarchism could work, but there's always that one jerk that ruins it for everyone.

I don't think one guy alone could ruin anarchism. It's like saying one bicycler is going to ruin bicycling for everyone else. How exactly would that work?

I think if we go to a more personal level, do you guys to be ruled over by some random dude who says he's there to protect you, who bosses you around, takes money from you and forces you to comply? I mean, I know that would certainly piss me off quite a lot. Maybe some of the BDSM people would enjoy it but otherwise, I would say in general, people are not okay with others telling them what to do, and forcing them to do things. In fact, if you go out into your town and start trying to force people to do things, like give you money or do work for you, you're going to be hated pretty strongly by the majority of people. In fact, you'd be called a criminal, and would already be in jail. IMO rightfully so. But that's basically what the government is. A nagging parent who forces adults to do things, and by any other standard would be a criminal organization.

I'm interested in hearing what you guys have to think about this.