|
|
| Do you believe that Democracy and Communism were attempts to achieve anarchy? |
| Yes |
|
15% |
[ 3 ] |
| No |
|
57% |
[ 11 ] |
| Yes and No or No and Yes |
|
21% |
[ 4 ] |
| Huh? |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:44 am
Anarchy. Everyone assumes that it's directly correlated to chaos and murder (generalazation). But what reasons have they given for the assumption that in the even of anarchy that everyone would position themselves in an aggressive stance and begin committing murder and other violent chaotic acts.
What are your reasons for thinking anarchy would bring chaos and murder?
Also people have been mystified with revolution as some others here have said before. But there are no reasons for anyone to think a revolution would be the only way for anarchy to come about. Though I've never seen, heard or read about revolution ending in anarchy.
What are your reasons for thinking revolution is the only method to achieve anarchy?
Even more puzzling to me is the intentional combination of gov't and religion. Now most gov't state that the two should be seperate, the basic building blocks of these gov'ts have the initial ground works towards achieving anarchy. Yet the people in power have perverted these building blocks and have placed the preverbial lead upon a brick and mortar wetland foundation. So if the gov'ts combine these two aspects and those who praise anarchy look down upon gov'ts why combine the two aspects in your own debates of anarchy.
What are your reasons for combining religion and gov't if you aspire to be unlike the gov'ts of today?
Finally I would like to point out the today's democracies are not a true democracy. If you were to read some of the original documents of democracies and compare those concepts/rules/laws to anarchy doesn't appear obvious that those ideas are only a stone's throw from achieving anarchy. Even communism is a relative of anarchy.
So, what are your reasons for despising the entire form of gov't rather than just the gov't as it is now?
And can you see the stepping stones to anarchy in the original works of the gov'ts and the actions they step up to attempt to achieve this goal?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:45 pm
anarchy doesnt mean "murder, mayhem" it means there is no set government. there could still be a police force but it would be vigilante and possibly too harsh or lax, Or both. since there would be no government regulations or stable courts, people could get away with pretty much anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:26 am
jpen anarchy doesnt mean "murder, mayhem" it means there is no set government. there could still be a police force but it would be vigilante and possibly too harsh or lax, Or both. since there would be no government regulations or stable courts, people could get away with pretty much anything. You didn't read what I wrote and you're assuming what I know and mean. I'd appreciate if when you come back to this, you'd go over the first post again then respond. No point in treating me like some uneducated child just because you're not going to take the time to read the post. Also anarchy would not have a police force because a police force would imply that there were laws to enforce. That is the duty of a police officer, protect and serve... the serve being in part to enforce the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:23 pm
Hello hello thanks thanks new comer going around
Alright lets see here *adjusts kilt and puts on glasses* lol in real life where did I put my glasses anyway? *came out of shower*
Anarchy? eh?
Anarchy doesn't work. Humans are not capable of having no one watch over them and tell them what to do. Someone would always figure "hey..mabye if I convice enough of my friends to follow me well then I would have an advantage over the guy next door..MUA AH AH" humans are herd animals. We need order. We need someone to go slap our a** and tell us too behave (lol bonadge ahahaha okay silly breaks over). Also in an anarchinist world there wouldn't be police..they would have gone and done there own thing because soon or a later they'd figure "well hey were the police. Who the frick is gonna tell us to do our job?" or somthing like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:34 am
Weazel Anarchy. Everyone assumes that it's directly correlated to chaos and murder (generalazation). But what reasons have they given for the assumption that in the even of anarchy that everyone would position themselves in an aggressive stance and begin committing murder and other violent chaotic acts.
What do you think Anarchy means?
Quote: What are your reasons for thinking anarchy would bring chaos and murder?
I think it would bring chaos and murder because thats the way we are. As humans. Without anyone leading us, or telling us what to do, what not to do, we take what we can when we can. We become murderous and dangerous. America (both north and south) have many examples of these. What about the riots in new york that happened in the eighties?
Quote: Also people have been mystified with revolution as some others here have said before. But there are no reasons for anyone to think a revolution would be the only way for anarchy to come about. Though I've never seen, heard or read about revolution ending in anarchy.
Yes, that's because after the revolution, comes the anarchy, then once all the people have slowed down and stopped all the rape and pillage, government steps in and tells everyone to calm the ******** down.
Quote: What are your reasons for thinking revolution is the only method to achieve anarchy?
I don't think revolution is the only means to achieve anarchy. What makes you assume that I do?
I think to achieve anarchy all you need to do is get rid of government. Because, you know, anarchy is human society without government.
Quote: Even more puzzling to me is the intentional combination of gov't and religion. Now most gov't state that the two should be seperate, the basic building blocks of these gov'ts have the initial ground works towards achieving anarchy. Yet the people in power have perverted these building blocks and have placed the preverbial lead upon a brick and mortar wetland foundation. So if the gov'ts combine these two aspects and those who praise anarchy look down upon gov'ts why combine the two aspects in your own debates of anarchy.
The idea of a government using religion to control its people has been around before christ. It works because of many different factors, some; fear of god, the government can manipulate the religion and the people, using fear of government disguised as fear of god, they can use gods preaching as their own. They can bring people together, give people the same beliefs and morals that they want their citizens to have. There are many advantages to lawfully uniting a country under one religion.
Also, I don't understand what you're trying to say.. Please be a little more clear(?).
Quote: What are your reasons for combining religion and gov't if you aspire to be unlike the gov'ts of today?
Why do I aspire to be unlike the governments of today?
And why do you assume that I would combine religion and government to do so mentioned above? Were I in power, I wouldn't use religion. I'd try teach religion softly, whisper it in the air, so that my people were being manipulated without knowing it. I'd try to slowly kill the extremism that some religions seemingly give birth to where ever they go.
Quote: Finally I would like to point out the today's democracies are not a true democracy. If you were to read some of the original documents of democracies and compare those concepts/rules/laws to anarchy doesn't appear obvious that those ideas are only a stone's throw from achieving anarchy. Even communism is a relative of anarchy.
Oh my god. The meaning of anarchy, a society without government. So what the crap are you trying to say? Technically your point doesn't make sense. How do you define "True Democracy"? I believe the "True Democracy" that you are referring to is far overdue for an update. It was written for a civilization born and died hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Times have changed, and so have the rules, the foundations, the ideals.
Quote: So, what are your reasons for despising the entire form of gov't rather than just the gov't as it is now?
What the ********?! I don't despise the entire form of government! Was there a memo that I missed? Come on!
Quote: And can you see the stepping stones to anarchy in the original works of the gov'ts and the actions they step up to attempt to achieve this goal?
You're asking me, if I can see the stepping stones to anarchy, that the government put in place.
Do you have any idea how contradicting that question is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:09 pm
"But what reasons have they given for the assumption that in the even of anarchy that everyone would position themselves in an aggressive stance and begin committing murder and other violent chaotic acts."
LOL... maybe it's because people already do commit murder and other violent chaotic acts even when we have a semi-strict code of law to protect against such acts. Considering all men are naturally violent and with the inner desire to act so, I don't see how you can logically think that removing the only barrier preventing what violence it can would result in peace and freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:16 pm
Gopher dude Also in an anarchinist world there wouldn't be police..they would have gone and done there own thing because soon or a later they'd figure "well hey were the police. Who the frick is gonna tell us to do our job?" or somthing like that. Actually one thing I always thought would be great about some sort of anarchist revolution would be that I'd have the opportunity to form a band of vigilantes and administer my own brand of justice. One reason preventing me from actually becoming an officer of the law now is that I would find it difficult to enforce a law that I find ridiculous in the first place, so if there was no law, I could take it into my own hands and maintain true justice (rather than living by some asinine Liberal code). It would actually be a way to start over again -- however as a lawful and just man I would never actually advocate such an inane ideal as anarchy. I'm only speaking hypothetically in the case that such a revolution did occur, I would surely be one of the few bringing old-fashioned justice back... or die trying... "What are your reasons for combining religion and gov't if you aspire to be unlike the gov'ts of today?" Our laws may be secular but our code of righteousness and justice is not. Our nation was founded on Christian principles, ones that we have long-since betrayed and spat in the face of. Religion IS government, Christ is my king and the Bible is my law. IN GOD we trust, so if you don't then what are you doing in my country? Taking advantage of the Christian principles upon which our nation was built, and then complaining about them later. That's not the way it works, our governments are pathetic and indecisive and that's why I don't believe in democracy. We are led by the masses of people, and when have the masses EVER known what they wanted and what's best for them? Never. Being ruled by the masses = being ruled by corruption and evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:35 am
I don't really care 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:28 pm
crimson_day I don't really care 3nodding +1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:16 pm
Crap this thread is old...does anyone even go in this forum anymore?
Anyway let me explain on this further.
Humans cannot be told what to do by themselves humans are all independent but at the same time have a type of "swarm mind" in the sense that they will huddle together and begine doing stupid crap.
If anarchy is somehow made (god forbig)...well at first everything will be fine....until one day one man thinks to himself "hey..anarchy hmmn..they're arn't any leaders..but..I could control all these people..and have alot of stuff..and take over! Ya! Sure I could! Then I could own alot of stuff, and live in a fancier house!"
with that said people are greedy, and ambitious they arn't content with leaving each other alone they like to have a leader and they like to have nice things. If you have 10 people and 4 of them have very nice things like necklaces, shiny rings, hamburgers, colourfull clothing, and 5 people have matching clothes, oatmeal, and dirt...they're going to go over and beat the crap out of the people with better things.
Humans instinctivly hate and envy each but at the same time we also passionatly love, trust, and share beautifull bonds with one another, and thats why anarchy can't work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:13 pm
im not exacly sure about this question, but it might for when a quee,/king is assasinated, then all hell breaks loose i guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:40 am
A common misconception, that has been mentioned often in this forum, is the idea that Anarchy would induce a lawless society. This is not true. Anarchy simply means "no ruler" thus no one person or small group of people would decide the laws governing others. Considering this, I think a better word to use for Anarchy would be "Direct Democracy", simply to avoid confusion between anarchy and anomie. In a direct democracy (A.K.A Anarchy) each person votes to pass a law, that is opposed having a congress vote for laws. Due to this, the needs of the people would directly affect what is passed, corruption in the lawmakers would not be an issue. This may seem like a slow process considering the size of the nation, more than likely it would happen on a communal level (I.E state-wise, county-wise, etc.), as well, with the recent advancements in technology, it would become much easier. As far as law enforcement is concerned, a volunteer law service would be ideal, as it would prevent any select group of people to become more influential than anyone else. In the event of one community starting war, and attempting to take control, other surrounding communities would band together to protect each other. They would push the opposing force back, but only to their original borders. This video may help describe the philosophy in a more visual way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KECcfKViog
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:21 pm
Jpen anarchy doesnt mean "murder, mayhem" it means there is no set government. there could still be a police force but it would be vigilante and possibly too harsh or lax, Or both. since there would be no government regulations or stable courts, people could get away with pretty much anything. Sorry to add on but also because of the lack of stability since people can do what they want it often times turns into a dictatorship or a system of government where one person or group rules all because they have the physical power to do so. Social Emergency A common misconception, that has been mentioned often in this forum, is the idea that Anarchy would induce a lawless society. This is not true. Anarchy simply means "no ruler" thus no one person or small group of people would decide the laws governing others. Considering this, I think a better word to use for Anarchy would be "Direct Democracy", simply to avoid confusion between anarchy and anomie. Direct democracy also has a set of laws that the people agree on. Anarchy on the other hand is a government with no ruler no ruler means that the people don't rule either like in democracy. It doesn't work or can last because people need direction and strive for power which is why anarchy leads to dictatorships.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:07 pm
Quote: Jpen Wrote: anarchy doesnt mean "murder, mayhem" it means there is no set government. there could still be a police force but it would be vigilante and possibly too harsh or lax, Or both. since there would be no government regulations or stable courts, people could get away with pretty much anything. Sorry to add on but also because of the lack of stability since people can do what they want it often times turns into a dictatorship or a system of government where one person or group rules all because they have the physical power to do so. Social Emergency Wrote: A common misconception, that has been mentioned often in this forum, is the idea that Anarchy would induce a lawless society. This is not true. Anarchy simply means "no ruler" thus no one person or small group of people would decide the laws governing others. Considering this, I think a better word to use for Anarchy would be "Direct Democracy", simply to avoid confusion between anarchy and anomie. Direct democracy also has a set of laws that the people agree on. Anarchy on the other hand is a government with no ruler no ruler means that the people don't rule either like in democracy. It doesn't work or can last because people need direction and strive for power which is why anarchy leads to dictatorships. Not entirely, direct democracy is, in essence, anarchy. In an anarchist society, there most definitely can be law. In fact, in an anarchist society, because these laws would be created by the people they affect, they would in theory be more highly respected by the people. Yes, there are possibilities that anarchy can lead to possible dictatorships. After the American revolution, people were afraid the same thing may happen if they became a democracy. For a long time there was lawlessness in our nation because it was new.However, the majority of people would commit drastic crimes simply because it is not in their mentality. I could go on...PM me if you'd like to discuss this further. Peace,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:15 pm
Anarchy is a state when there is no governing force. Without a governing force upholding and enforcing "the rules" (law) then people will do what they want without fear of being arrested, tried, and punished (though they would have to fear retribution from those they have wronged, but that's something entirely different). That's not to say that all people would go nuts (for lack of a better term) and start stealing and murdering. However, many would, because without a governing force, money has suddenly lost it's value, markets are suddenly not safe from thievery and will probably shut down, and now people have nowhere to buy food and nothing to buy it with anyway. People would panic, fear would probably rise to hysterical levels, millions would probably starve, freeze to death, etc.
Anarchy is, by definition, a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority. If you want to talk about direct democracy, talk about direct democracy, but that and anarchy are NOT the same thing.
And, in answer to the question in the poll, no I don't think either democracy or communism are attempts to create an anarchistic society, since it is impossible to simultaneously have and not have a governing force.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
