POLITICS

[Kman]

i feel like ive heard this in a sound clip at the start of a choking victim song

can't believe you figured it out.

4 real tho

[Alardem]

I'm just thinking of the hippies of the 1960s as a parallel - generally speaking, these anti-authoritarian youths turned more regressive and opposed to change once they actually had to start working for the system. They became their parents.

History will probably repeat.

[Cuyir]

Anarchism exists only for a short period of time. Basically between two governments. The old government goes down > anarchism > new government created by the strongest group/s

And then that government turns out to be the same or worse.

What then?

Anarchism tends to have more scenarios that end in unnecessary strife to wind up having another government and thus having no change.

I understand that that's sometimes required but the idealism falls flat in my book. No real change, no dialog, just replace one government with another through chaos.

[Nice]

anarchism would never work

[CarnivorousJelly]

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

[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.

[Ghieri]

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?

By "That one guy" he means every druglord, kingpin, murderer, child rapist, arsonist, trafficker, and low-life thug.

Yeah, give those guys no rules, see what happens.

[SchnidlersLeest]

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?

By "That one guy" he means every druglord, kingpin, murderer, child rapist, arsonist, trafficker, and low-life thug.

Yeah, give those guys no rules, see what happens.

Sorry, you're one letter off there.

If a society ceased to be ruled over, the lower criminals in the society (the ones not in the government) would have to deal with far harsher consequences for violating the property rights of others, as there wouldn't be a way to survive by skipping court dates and living in jail for shortened amounts of time. First, they would have to make sure no one knew of the crime they were committing, which makes criminality far more difficult. Second, there would be (presumably) no megaprisons, so you wouldn't have somewhere to be sheltered and fed after having be found out.

Besides that, the state actually profits from criminals because they then have an excuse to extort more money from the general working population. It is in their best interest to continue spreading criminality, through ridiculous drug laws, falsely arresting people and creating criminals through state funded institutions. Plus, the government itself is fundamentally predicated on the initiation of force, which is the base of all criminality. Murderer initiates the use of force. Rapist initiates the use of force. Arsonist initiates the use of force. The government initiates the use of force. Saying you're protected by the government is like saying you're protected by the mafia. It's just what they tell you.

[Ghieri]

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?

By "That one guy" he means every druglord, kingpin, murderer, child rapist, arsonist, trafficker, and low-life thug.

Yeah, give those guys no rules, see what happens.

Sorry, you're one letter off there.

If a society ceased to be ruled over, the lower criminals in the society (the ones not in the government) would have to deal with far harsher consequences for violating the property rights of others, as there wouldn't be a way to survive by skipping court dates and living in jail for shortened amounts of time. First, they would have to make sure no one knew of the crime they were committing, which makes criminality far more difficult. Second, there would be (presumably) no megaprisons, so you wouldn't have somewhere to be sheltered and fed after having be found out.

Besides that, the state actually profits from criminals because they then have an excuse to extort more money from the general working population. It is in their best interest to continue spreading criminality, through ridiculous drug laws, falsely arresting people and creating criminals through state funded institutions. Plus, the government itself is fundamentally predicated on the initiation of force, which is the base of all criminality. Murderer initiates the use of force. Rapist initiates the use of force. Arsonist initiates the use of force. The government initiates the use of force. Saying you're protected by the government is like saying you're protected by the mafia. It's just what they tell you.

You're missing the point, the kingpins will be wanting to seize power, so they will hire the previously mentioned assholes of society to do their dirty work.

Gotham city exists in it's state because the city bends to the will of criminals like Black mask. It's a fictional city, but is a scary accurate representation of what would happen in a FFA society.

[SchnidlersLeest]

You're missing the point, the kingpins will be wanting to seize power, so they will hire the previously mentioned assholes of society to do their dirty work.

The kingpins will be wanting to seize power, so they will go into the government, and control the police force, military, and chemical/nuclear weapons. And the majority of people bend their will to that power because they respect it.

Which one is more threatening?

And sorry, Batman is not an accurate representation of reality. The problem of crime could be solved right now if we had 10 batmen per country, but that's the point; it's fun to think about because it's a fantasy.