Debate Anarchy

For two seconds of your life, please, for the love of all that is holy and unholy, type coherently...

And that doesn't PROVE anything except that yet again, you're blindly accepting what someone else says without another thought and go about preaching it as gospel. What it doesn't say there are the myriad of possibilities. Who KNOWS exactly how much they could've known? Who knows what botched it, if something was even botched? Who knows what could have exactly been done to prevent it? Sure, they buildings could've been called off, send every one home, or stop all flights. But who's to say that after knowing this that they wouldn't have backed off their attacking until everything was okely dokely again? These people may be considered sadistic or fanatic for what they did; doesn't make them STUPID.

I would like to see you come up with the perfect solution for what happened. Tell me, what could have made EVERYTHING all better and completely avoided everything that happened, so that absolutely nothing went wrong, whatsoever?

 

O.K, deathfly, all you're doing is pointing out something we already know. The government has faults. Sometimes they screw up, sometimes things go wrong, but every frikin system you could POSSIBLY think up has faults!! Anarchy has more faults then possibly any system, in fact, it isn't even a system! It's just a bunch of loonies running around with the freedom to do whatever they want!

After reading Amon's post (thanx so much for traslation btw) I finally understood what you were trying to say. And obviously failed at saying, because think of it this way. You're saying that violence is promoted? That people get raped, shot, and loads of other things? What do you think is going to happen with anarchy?! MORE people will get raped, MORE people will get shot, and there's absolutely nothing ANYBODY can do about it because, techincally, they have every right to do so.

And what Bush is doing with Saddam and all that stuff really has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Again, the government may not always make the choices that I'd agree with, and some people in the government may be, pigheaded, idiotic, and overall just stupid. (Don't flame me, I'm not referring to anybody in particular when I say this, it's just sort of obvious that this is deathfly's opinion about Bush). The government DOES get things wrong, and a lot of people use it against them, revolt against them, take their problems out on them, and scream that the world would be a better place without them.

But without them, our country would be doomed in an instant, and you deathflly, could find yourself dead. Obviously some of the people on this board disagree with your statement. So, with anarchy, what's stopping them from killing you because you don't agree with their views?

 

People like me will magically transmutate into the Care Bears Wankfest, of course!

And it's been stated enough, but I'll restate it - Deathfly, stop saying things like "this system has X flaw, therefore we should resort to anarchy." That isn't explaining WHY we should use anarchy at all.

 

I will admit the government does stupid things sometimes but we still need order in our lives. Without of government or certain rules for living, we would be a bunch of barbarians beating each other with clubs.

 

That was figurative speech.

 

And what Bloodberry said was sarcasm...

Anyhow, it all comes back to the same point. We need governments to impose a general standard of behavior - to give stupid people incentives (like jail) to think better of their violent impulses.

 

Although it could be argued that current governments are unable to do even that. We've got stuff like overcrowding in the prison system and rising crime rates in many cities and towns to illustrate this.
Furthermore, enforcement of so many "standards of behaviour" is so totally lax that it might as well not be there at all. And what enforcement we do have is focussed on the wrong targets. I've been in cities where police and politicians are more concerned about pot-smokers and underage drinking than the known crackhouses on one side of town.

I'm digressing greatly here, but I'll try and tie this in ...

When you consider corruption and misdirection in various world governments, it is really no wonder that there are many misguided people who would prefer the abolishment of government as a whole. I, however, would sooner preach reform than removal: the whole fight the system from inside bit.
Besides, my father said something interesting to me over the weekend: "the best training to work for the system is rebelling against it". Remember that back in the day there were hippies and protestors and draft-dodgers and all that other stuff. Look at where they are now: politicians, businessmen, intrepreneurs ... the very things they rebelled against. Hell, my aunt was into all that stuff and she's now head of human resources for a police department.
Rebellion and anarchy may seem like good ideas now, but sooner or later, most "anarchists" grow up.

 

yo, you are all on crack. Come on, "anarchy is bad, blah blah blah." There is nothing wrong with anarchy. So i must point out how anarchy would work.
1. Anarchy is lack of government, not lack of rules. There are still rules in place. Most people still will not kill, if someone wants to kill someone else now they will still do it. Government does not prevent murder nor do they stop "bad people" from doing "bad things."
2. Government does not put all mores in plays. As the MAJOR I am taking of sociology I have done the research to see that government fines people, but people still do everything regardless.
3. The sanctions that people put on others still exist in anarchy.
4. Most people don't follow the rules of the government, but of a religion.
So that means that if your God (or gods) tells you to do something, you will follow them regardless of government, aka 9-11. Government did not stop it, thought a religion started it. (I do not back what happened, and if you take this out of context then don’t reply)
For all of you who don't know, mores (Mor-a's) are the rules that make us the same.
Folkways are the normal rules that people live with in society.
Sanctions are the reactions that people have towards you, like if a cheerleader made fun of you for dieing your hair.

So next time do the research. Do not talk to me till you do. Let’s just say this is your homework assignment.

 

:glazed: In anarchy law enforcement would be put on our backs. no one can rise to over power the rest of the world, nor will people want power as much as they do now, so I want you all to know, right now we all suck as a whole, and people are opportunist, and will take advantage of all. :dizzy2:


OFF TOPIC NONSENSE DELETED - Ark

 

Ah, first a relative of yours is a personally close friend of Kurt Cobain's so that s/he knows that Kurt Cobain did not kill himself, but now you're a sixteen year old Sociology major? Next thing y'know, she's gonna claim she's really Jesus Christ or something. Sheesh.

Okay then, Government doesn't stop what religion tells people to do (as you have put it, so all you religious people out there, tear into HER, not ME) or crime in general. Tell me how hammering the fact of no government into the mindset of countless, crazed sadists, schizophreniacs, serial killers, mass murderers, bigots, rapists, thieves, mafiosos and hitmen.. tell me how THAT is so much better? Tell me, prove it to me that telling them all that we no longer have a form of goverment will make everything magically so much better than it is now? Come on, "explain it to me like I'm a four year-old".

The fact of the matter is you're starting to make yourself out to seem like one of those snot-nosed punks that walks around in a high school wearing all black with every part of your body pierced, too much eyeliner, yelling about destroying the goverment and how much life sucks and how you don't have any friends and so you're so blind that you'll pick up any theory that sounds the most absurd and everyone will argue with just so you can get some attention.

You haven't proved a thing here besides that:
A) You have NO proof that Anarchy is better
B) All you can do is post OTHER PEOPLE'S BELIEFS AND IDEAS, NOT EVEN YOUR OWN
C) You like making up stories
D) You're trying to find a bull**** way out of paying taxes
E) You can't type for **** but think that you're better than everyone else.

So, what I say to YOU is that YOU have a homework assignment...

Open any blood Elementary School English/Reading/Writing Book and learn to be bloody coherent, capisce?

[EDIT] And by the way, next time you quote from a Kevin Smith movie, namely Clerks, do the boards a favor and censor the language so the Mods and Admins here don't get in trouble when some little kid starts running around yelling the word you type, and pick a bloody better quote, AT LEAST SOMETHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE TOPIC. [/EDIT]

 

But it does punish those who do bad things. Whats anarchy going to do? How is it going to enforce its rules?

This still does not explain how said rules are going to be enforced nor does it address the concern that it could simply be ineffective laws/enforcement.

Except that they can be more extreme due to lack of enforcement of rules. Although I will for the record say that I have never seen sanctions defined as you say it is.

Source?

Actually, 9-11 is primarily due to a religious government (The Taliban regime of Afghanistan) so both a religion AND a government started it. Furthermore you do not address the progressive muslims/christians/jews/whatever who obey the laws of a government primarily and their religion secondarily or just outright discard silly notions like not wearing clothing made of two different fabrics.

But actually, wouldn't you be voting for the abolishment of religion then? Like you said - a religion started it.

 

The government cant stop all crimes from happening but if we didn't have a government to set certain rules and laws there would probably be a lot more crime. I dont support everything our government does but we still need them.

 

That's absolutely true. Most governing systems are severely lacking in real usefulness - but not because the system itself is bad. It's human errors, human flaws that cause these problems. And said flaws would not be removed by removal of the government. The inherent flaw in anarchy is that people are NOT basically good and moral. People are greedy, cruel, and hateful - and these traits will be reflected in society no matter how we choose to govern ourselves.

That's true, people - especially the young, who are rebellious by nature - tend to think that the best way to solve a problem is to just trash the whole thing. But again, human flaws are the core of the problem. You see it everywhere - ANY system, governmental, religious, whatever, is only as good as the people contributing to it. Anarchy's not a solution. The best possible thing would be for humans in general to reach a higher plane of thought and morality, where our systems would no longer be abused and rules would no longer be ignored.

But I don't think I need to point out how unlikely that is...

Have you not been reading what people say? There are plenty of things wrong with anarchy, in terms of its ability to be a functional system in modern society.

OK, I would think this should be obvious... but without a government, who's going to enforce the rules? The people? Opinion and standards of what's acceptible vary so greatly by region, state, city, even neighborhood sometimes that there would be little, if any, sort of national unity without a government to maintain basic rules. As I said before, we'd have to resort to city-states and townships to have functional anarchy in that regard.

And the kinds of people who "still do everything regardless" wouldn't stop just because the government was gone, would they? In fact, people who now are content to let the government handle most situations might decide to take the law into their own hands if we lived in a state of anarchy... And personally, I think of all America's domestically-owned guns, and of the number of religious individuals who would take a great deal of offense at certain other religious individuals, and I'm glad that they know there's a national government to punish them if they do something stupid.

And without overreaching government standards and laws, religion would have even greater control, as in some nations the church IS the government... And guess what? Get rid of non-religious government, and a religious dictatorship will pop up to take over faster than you can say "Jesus Christ."

Yes, but you're talking about a nation where the church pretty much IS the government.

And guess what? If your deity of choice tells you to go out and murder someone, the government punishes you, at least where church and state are seperate. The government isn't perfect in ANY country, but I'm glad that the US government at least won't stand for <example> the pockets of extreme religious groups that would have gays and lesbians run out of town, or beaten (even if, at the moment, many officials are still sanctioning certain bigotries... but that's off-topic). </example> I actually saw an article on a town that wanted to ban gays from living in it a while back - if I can find it again, I may edit this post to put in a link, so we can all see how local groups would govern themselves without a national standard enforced by the government.

Keep the condescension to yourself, please.

 

I would be curious to see this research. I would also like to know when the last time someone got fined for an act of terrorism or murder was. Last time I checked, those got you imprisonment at best.

In support, I will refer you to a certain incident which everyone no doubt has at least some familiarity. A little thing historians like to call The Crusades.
You see, during this time, there were no centralized governments. There were a few national monarchies, but at the time they had no real power. Everything was in the hands of feudal lords, more or less. Well, except the Church. At the time, the Church (particularly the Western half, not so much the Greek side), a religious authority, was able to capitalize on people's beliefs in its teachings and in the lack of any other authority and tell people to do whatever the Pope willed. This is how the Crusades started.
If this example cannot prove the argument of religious power dominating in the absense of socioeconomic and political power, then I don't know what can.
And I, for one, HAVE done research into this matter. Please excuse the horrible formatting in the attached file; it was pasted over from WordPerfect.
Also, read Jonathon Riley-Smith's The First Crusaders and Brian Terney's Western Europe in the Middle Ages: 300-1475 (particularly chapters 10, 12 and 13) for more info on the state of Western European governments and structures of power during this time.


While I'm at it, I'd like to throw in a few lyrical points:
"a-n-a-r-c-h-y...his name is "captain anarchy," but only in his mind a-n-a-r-c-h-y...so punk that he's a poser and he'll be one till he dies"
-Anti-Flag, Captain Anarchy-

"you're the new revolution
the angst-filled adolescent
you fit the stereotype well"
-Rise Against, Six Ways 'Til Sunday-

 

Uh... OK. Please, please explain how you can justify saying that, under anarchy, people be less power-hungry than they are now. People are not going to magically change just to make anarchy workable!! Think of mobsters, gangsters, religious zealots, terrorists, nut-jobs! None of these people would become peaceful, happy, live-and-let-live types just with the removal of centralized government! Your argument is hopelessly flawed, if that's the belief it's based on.

Now, what the hell does that have to do with anything? -_- Please, deathfly, if you want to be taken seriously - stop trying to distract us from the holes in your arguments by making random comments like the above, and your previous remark to the effect of, "Gotta go, emergency, friend suicide" - or whatever that was.

Yup. Think of the millions of people who, even now, are willing to do awful things because of religion - whether it's extreme Muslim groups attacking the US, or rightists in America condoning bigotry against gays because their religious leaders tell them it's OK. These things would escalate to even greater violence without a seperate power imposing limits and moderation.

 

Deathfly, please cease your hostilities with the English language. What you're doing to it is almost a crime.

- Ark

 

You asked for it, so I'll quote my psych text book… But, I bet every sentence from this will be ripped to shreds(meh, it'd be nice anyways to see what people think about it). I'm quite sure that these have been empirically proven, actually everything in the text supposedly is.

Wade, C., Tavris, C. et al. (2004). Psychology: Canadian edition. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Education Canada Inc.

As for anarchy, seems a bit silly. But, you seem to be more of a socialist if anything, fly.

 

That's obviously refering to situations of parents punishing their children, not of a government or society's ability to punish a criminal. I don't really see the relevance to this argument. Could you flesh this out these points with application?