POLITICS

[Cuyir]

Then what would you do then, eh?

If governments are so useless (while you safely type in the comfort of your home, first world problems eh?) then what's the alternative?

Give them freedom for what? To install a new government? To install a new order? You seem to be ignoring the most pervasively violent parts of a society and the people that would then use anarchy as a springboard to rule.

Again, that's a pretty big oversight.

Also, nice contradiction:

''I agree that a lot of violence would erupt out of the government abruptly retracting itself, but that's because there are so many people who are dependent on the government at this point.''

"Saying the government prevents chaos is as stupid as saying it progresses society."

Seems to me they do in at LEAST one way, according to you.

Point of the matter is that you want anarchy for anarchy's sake. For some romanticized ideal of ''freedom''. Thing is, as you've stated before, anarchy only lasts till a group comes out of it and forms a government. What then? Still haven't answered me that. All I got was ''rah rah rah government is bad, rah rah rah rah freedom and chaos is good'' and a short dose of ''fuck da police''.

And nice bastardization of my analogy.

[Nice]

Anarchy and no government sounds nice if you dont think about it at all... Wooo freedom, woo doing whatever you want, wooo no taxes.

Now think how it would actually be, as Cuyir said:

It's in human nature to make someone the "alpha" of the group or the leader, even if not intentionally. Either some really smart guy is always looked on to make decisions for others or some brutish strong one to solve problems.

If you honestly think that governmet is doing nothing at all, then you're really wrong. Government is holding the "place" together, the country. It looks to improve the country (atleast tries to) and to maintain order within country. You sound like one of those "FUK THE POLICE" guys. If it weren't for laws, government and police...What would stop me from killing every guy that just looks at me ugly? What would stop people from stealing each other? What would stop rapes, murders and everything else.

Anarchism aka having no laws and government would throw us further back than stone age

[Cuyir]

Trust me, I'd love to live in an utopic society where everyone at least TOLERATED each other.

Where we would be inherently free. Free in all its glory.

Where existence would be incredibly boring in a good way because there's no danger, just peace.

It would be incredible to walk around this city and greet other people, no honking cars, no shrieking sirens, no murmurs. Just an idealistic version of society. A place where ideas can be shared and expounded upon. Where children can play while their proud parents watch. Where nobody is suffering, where nobody has to work two or more jobs to make ends meet.

I don't see that happening through anarchy or through a traditional government. I see that happening in some point in time where humanity reaches new plateaus of thought. As of now, this little quaint description of a perfect society I just blathered on about is so incredibly flawed on its core because of our human nature, of the realities of an economy and society and a bunch of other factors I'm not going to get on about on a forum.

Human interactions and societies are more complex than ''lets cause chaos and start again''. Society is complex, economy is complex, we are complex (and shallow too but that's another point completely).

[SchnidlersLeest]

@Cuyir:

My computer and the comfort of my home have to do with nothing the result of government interference, but rather the freedom people had to build such things, if that's what you're suggesting. People forget that the government doesn't actually produce anything. And no, I'm not suggesting that we take down the current government and replace it with a new one, based on preferential feelings, but that the system is fundamentally flawed and immoral for what its basis is.

Getting people dependent on the government is NOT a good thing at all, in just inherently obvious ways that will soon make themselves clear through the government running out of money and no longer being able to support all the people it's supposed to be paying. That is a complete disaster and is not an indication of the government doing something correctly, rather a gigantic reason for why it doesn't work. It was not a contradiction; I said it was stupid to expect the government to PREVENT chaos, but the former example was how the government actually CAUSES chaos.

"Anarchy for anarchy's sake."

I don't know what this means. And if freedom is an impossible ideal why do you try to have any freedoms at all? Why not live in China, or Cuba or any communistic totalitarian country, if the ideals of freedom are just an illusion?

Thank you for putting words in my mouth. I did not say that "chaos is good."

"Thing is, as you've stated before, anarchy only lasts till a group comes out of it and forms a government. What then? Still haven't answered me that"

Again, I didn't say that. Anytime any super power has gone down in the past, anyone who wants to control people sees the opportunity to take the place of that super power because people still thought that they needed a government. So, when governments have gone down in the past, they were expecting and hoping for a new one to rise up and replace it; they weren't hoping for anarchy. And yeah sure, anarchy would only last until a government reemerges, but it's like saying "the universe will only last until it doesn't." Well, yeah, but we don't know if that will ever happen and it doesn't really matter if it does come back, because it was at least better that was TRIED to get rid of it. It's like saying you shouldn't try to get rid of cancer because it might come back.

@Dogfood:

"If you honestly think that governmet is doing nothing at all, then you're really wrong. Government is holding the "place" together, the country."

The government holds together the "country" like a farmer holds together a livestock pen. It's just to keep you there so that they can continue to get from you what you produce. And the "country" is an abstraction, there is no physical mass called a "country." There are planes, mountains and rivers etc., but none of those things are connected to something called "the country." It's not like all the land mass would start falling apart if it weren't held together by something called "the government." it's just arbitrary lines to keep you penned in. You have people who are in the government, and you have people who aren't in the government. That's it.

" If it weren't for laws, government and police...What would stop me from killing every guy that just looks at me ugly?"

So you're telling me that you would just start killing people if there weren't laws to hold you back to do so? That sounds pretty psychotic. And if it's just that you know someone who would do that, I would try to get as far away from them as possible.

And if your opinion is that the majority of people are psychotic murderers then we're doomed either way because we live in a democracy!

"Anarchism aka having no laws and government would throw us further back than stone age"

So if the government suddenly stopped taxing you and its power ceased, all of your technology would disappear and you would be rediscovering how to use tools made out of bone, and your ability to understand language would be gone, and cars will disappear and cities will disappear and... I'm not too sure about that.

---

Human interactions and societies are more complex than ''lets cause chaos and start again''. Society is complex, economy is complex, we are complex (and shallow too but that's another point completely).

And that's exactly why we can't have a government that has to figure out what direction society goes in, because there's no way of knowing!

---

I don't see that happening through anarchy or through a traditional government. I see that happening in some point in time where humanity reaches new plateaus of thought.

I think I could settle on that. You're right that people will need to become aware of the violence in the state and its wrongness. We're not going to get rid of violent hierarchies by violently overthrowing the current one. I do not think society is fully ready for the transition to anarchy for it to happen in the near future, but if it did suddenly happen and all governments closed, it wouldn't be like "AAAHHH CHAOS" "AAAAHHH GENOCIDE." I know its offensive to say to someone that they've been lied to and are now delusional to some degree because of that, but of course governments are going to want to say that anarchy leads to more violence, because anarchy means they lose their power.


"What's the alternative?"

The alternative to having rulers is to not have rulers. :p

When I was saying that I felt the argument was stupid, I didn't say that I thought you were stupid Cuyir, or anyone whose argument I may have commented on, just to make that clear. :p

[Paddy™]

Okay, so you meant to say that the power of violence was taken away from the people who weren't the individuals known as the "police." How is that a good thing?

I don't know if it's a good or a bad thing, I'm saying the data shows that the more a populace relinquishes its needs for violence to the government, the less violence there is on the whole.

[SchnidlersLeest]

I don't know if it's a good or a bad thing, I'm saying the data shows that the more a populace relinquishes its needs for violence to the government, the less violence there is on the whole.

Still, if they're passing over their "need" for violence to the government, logically that just piles up into something far deadlier than had each person not have the powers of armies and nuclear weapons. Of course the government acts in accordance to the exact opposite of what people need. People need freedom. :p

I think it's an important question as to why a society would have a need for violence in the first place, if that claim is even true to begin with.

[Cuyir]

You did say that Anarchy only lasted till one of the warring groups ''won'', to which I asked, ''what then''?

You still haven't answered my question and instead told me to go to China and put words in MY mouth. There's two types of freedom: Complete and utter freedom (which is flawed because no laws can mean more ''crime'' yadda yadda) and what most first world countries call freedom (which is flawed, if we're looking at semantics). We might not have the freedom to do whatever the fuck we want but what we have we can call freedom.

Someone isn't breaking down your door to steal everything you have right now cause there's an entity that's protecting against that. Does it happen? Yep. But if there would be no order it would be common, instead of an uncommon event. And as for your comment on a ''government not producing anything'': i'd say most things we take for granted were created under governments that protect copyrights (even if copyright holders can be assholes), companies and people. If there was no structure like the government we wouldn't have most things that we have. Not to mention that governments tend to invest in businesses and technology. So a government's effect on a society is more widespread than you're willing to give them credit for.

You are pro-anarchy (or so you've told us) but anarchy lasts till a new government is formed. Soooooooooooooo what do you want? There will always be a leader (s)/ruler (s), it's how it has always worked. When you're working with a group for a project at college or with a workplace team, there's always that person that leads. There's also shared leaderships (which technically applies to most governments). Leadership isn't inherently evil and corrupt, like you're saying.

You are a stereotypical college level anarchist that screams ''FUCK THE GOVERNMENT, THE SYSTEM'S CORRUPT, FUCK IT, RAH RAH RAH'' but you don't suggest any way to make it better. You don't TRY to help in any sort of way. I've poked you numerous times to tell me what's the point of anarchism, what's the point of this and that and you've answered by spreading blame everywhere. Never once did you give me a solution, just ''FUCK THE GOVERNMENT''. We are the ones responsible for placing leaders of questionable qualities ''up there'', we are able to choose better people if we wanted to (a lot of voters don't go to primaries and the nutjobs vote for nutjobs).

I said how having a government is both good and bad and how it's possible to live in peace with a government. I've also said that MY ideal scenario is not practical because of our nature and the nature of a society. You are just spreading blame and not trying to even suggest anything just, ''NO RULERS CAUSE ALL RULERS ARE BAAAAAAAAAD'', which is a worrisome thought because not all leadership is the same. So I might be done discussing really.Unless you tell me what you want and how do you want it (society-wise), there's no reason to keep beating a zombie horse, lol.

[SchnidlersLeest]

@Cuyir:

Wow, I don't want to tell that you wasted your time writing all that, but you may want to go back a read a few of my posts again.