Debate Anarchy

You know thats my whole problem with anarchy. From my reasearch on the subject most of the true Anarchists from the late 1800's to early 1900's were also Socialists. And like the so-called anarchists today they probly thought if the goverment was over thrown we wold all live together happily in communes like a bunch of hippie communists. These people clearly have not taken basic human nature into acount.

 

Yeah, we'd be childishly ganging up if we said things like "anarchy sucks because all punks are morons" or something like that. Or "I don't like anarchy, so that means I have to hate you by association".
Any rational person will easily realize at some point or other that not everyone is going to share their political beliefs. And any politically minded person will be willing to rationally argue their beliefs in an intellectual setting. In fact, I think it is quite commendable how deathfly is standing up for her beliefs (although I believe them misguided and wrong), even in the face of the rest of us. She just needs to develop her own arguments, and to learn how to form a sentence.

 

The "forming a sentence" part would help a whole lot.

- Ark

 

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't think that deathfly's beliefs are "wrong" - simply that they're not valid as anything but theory, because they rely on illogical and unproven assumptions about human nature. I don't think anyone is here to bash deathfly, merely to try and see where she's coming from - which is a little frustrating when her posts can be hard to read because of the grammar and spelling issues. ^^; That's where people start to get frustrated.

I'm sure that if this was getting full of real insults, nastiness, and ad-homs, we'd all be getting mod-smacked right about now. XD But so far, it's mainly been an exchange of facts and relevant opinions.

And I agree, deathfly is to be commended for holding her ground all by herself. She may not have convinced me that anarchy could work, but hey, at least she's still trying.

 

I thank you. I’m sorry that I have bad grammar and spelling. I’ve been trying to say that I am NOT a complete anarchist, I just believe that some of the theories are good and that the mind of someone and the rules that people follow are rules of your mind and not of the government. People will follow rules they believe in and break the one's they don't believe in, prohibition for example. During the roaring 20s, we were close to anarchy, but we didn't reach it because of the stock market crash and the suspicion that the rich are to rich. And the poor are to poor... Though anarchy had nothing to do with the people starting to lose everything, the people started to lose jobs due to the idea that the government wasn’t helping at all and that the stock wasn’t really worth all the market say’s they were worth. Every era of the United States government, there was some sort of folly, and to those follies, there are always some anarchist that believed that the only way to clean the world, is that of trying the no government system. I was merely showing that there are other views out there and that looking at only one idea is not healthy. Kind of like communism, the theory is great when you look at it, but once put in play, communism spits out people like Hitler and Stalin. Anarchy is, to me, the same way. Though communism came out as a genocidal way of life, the theory was intended for the best of all, to rid the world of classes, but we got people abusing it, like all forms of government.

 

1) Hitler wasn't communist. He had socialist leanings, but he was NOT communist.

2) Communism is an economic model more than it is a government (you'd could, for example, have a communist monarchy, a communist democracy, a communist theocracy... in fact pretty much the only thing you couldn't have is a communist plutocracy)

3) I've never considered the 20s to be close to anarchy... see with prohibitioin you were removing a time honoured tradition that everyone indulges in. Yes, there were lots of underground rum runners, but that was NOT close to anarchy. And the crash came due to... well it sounds silly but a big reason for it is due to credit card companies. There wasn't enough cash to actually pay off the debts.

 

Furthermore, the market crash occured in 1929, and the depression was the 1930's, not the 1920's. The "Dirty Thirties", as they say.
By the way, Communism is the government, Socialism is the economic system.

 

com·mu·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members

from dictionary.com

The second definition does say its a government type though. I've also always considered socialism to be more of a hybrid of communism and capitalism.

 

I'm sorry than that i phrased what was going on as 'ganging up on'. Deathfly is one of my best friends and she, i, as well as a couple other people consider each other sisters and those of you who know me know i am, at times, overly protective of my friends and family. So Gomen. *Athena

Now to a more on topic point:
I am by no means a complet anarchist but i do have to agree with a couple of the points that are in anarchy. I think that those points are a great ideal but, like communisim, it works better on paper than in real life with real people.

 

All I know is that in my economics classes we talked more about socialism than communism. The way it looks to me is that socialism is to communism what capitalism is to democracy: they just sort of go together, but are not necessarily the same thing.

 

Oh, definitely. If it were functionally possible for people to govern themselves in a fair, unbiased, moral, and intelligent way while still remaining connected to the global community and maintaining current standards of healthcare, financial assistance, education, etc - that'd be great. If it were possible to prevent the rights of those in the minority (either racially or in the minority stance on a certain topic) from being trampled, without a corrupt government being required to do it, that would be great too.

Trouble is, basically ALL forms of government work better on paper than in practice. As I've said before, people are neither as moral nor as intelligent as these models require to function in their ideal state. And untill people change drastically, or everyone suddenly shares identical viewpoints on all significant issues, there's no way that anarchy could be sucessfully practiced.

 

Thing is you could theoretically hold a comunist democracy... hence my standpoint that communism is more of an economic model intregrated into a government more than a government by itself. Ah well, either way we have the same idea, just slightly different take on it.

 

I would first like to note that America was founded by right-wingers, so with such right-wingers, I doubt that the 13 colonies would remain under British rule. The people who came to what is now the eastern United States were religious refugees fleeing England due to persecution. And why were they being persecuted? For not agreeing with all the changes that were being done to religion in England. They wanted things to be more like they were, and less like they were going to be. I'm not even American and I know that.

Now, I would like to use this thread as an example of problems with anarchy. A microcosm, if you will.
See, here we have an example of mob rule developing. There has been no moderatorship in here to tell us to shut up for flaming, or to close this thread for getting ugly, or for breaking any debate forum rules (once again, like the flaming here). There has been one person (or two, or however many you have in there) saying one thing, while everyone else is basically beating this person with a board. Basically, this is a situation where no matter what the minority does, they will be continually smacked up by the rest of the populace. If this occured in the world somewhere instead of on the Internet, and we were all true anarchists, we would have probably killed however many deathflies there are out there.
On the other hand, in a nice GOVERNED system, preferably a democracy, you would not be killed for saying what you think. We may state our strong disagreement, but we would probably not stab you 17 times in the head or something like that.
So, basically, if you want to run your mouth like that, fine, have fun. But bear in mind that without the law to protect you, your *** is grass.

 

And I'm the Lawnmower Man!

 

Two reasons I'd rather have your own beliefs:

1.) If it's not your own belief, then you aren't thinking for yourself.

2.) Saying "They have a degree in it, they must be right" is an appeal to authority, yet another logical fallacy.

 

Okay... I'm going to cut out what isn't necessary in the least...

"Yeah. I would think that Right Wingers are loyal to their country, so if it were up to them, we would not have separated from Great Britain. Well, it works both ways I guess. Democrats would be too scared and Republicans would be too hot tempered. I guess we can thank the Native Americans. Rock on. (This isn't really important, I know, I just want to see this guy get flamed like all Hell for this comment).

Now, instead of debating like the way some of you are, why don't you give reasons it would and reasons it would not. You don't believe in it, that's fine. But you have to give reasons, like what Novus did. I do respect you and when I have time I will site my sources.

And Baphijmm, do you want me to bring my own ideas into this? Or peoplea that actually have degrees in this? I bring other ideas in to here but I don't take them as my ideas. There is no government in drug culture and it's been around since before the 1920's. It's called organized crime. It worked until alcohol became legal again in the 1930's.

I never said cops don't exist. I said that if the government worked now, September 11th would never have happened

Oh and anyone in the drug culture knows it's Anarchy, but it is organized."

Okay, the one thing I LOVE about this post is the complete and utter contradiction in that last sentence. Superb. I love you, man, I really do.

Any ways, perhaps you just aren't getting it, I don't know, but you are saying Anarchy, IE THE LACK OF GOVERNMENT, is better than the government we have now... and, to attempt to prove this you have taken the example of drugs, an "anarchy" as you so faithfully put it. Now... I'm not sure if you think drugs are GOOD for the country or what, but considering that it's technically considered NOT good for the country, that pretty much eliminates any standing you even remotely have. There. There is a reason, perhaps you're just over-looking it and trying to be obnoxious, or maybe you don't KNOW what a reason is because frankly I have yet to see you, yourself, state a valid one.

Though as Baphijmm had put it in a discussion we were having in the IRC Chat Room of M2A, the way you are putting the drug culture up is classifying it as a government in itself, thus, yet again, completely nullifying your point.

Our organized system of Law exists because of our Government. Take away the Government, you take away the Law, thus, taking away the cops. Let's try and put this in a way that you would understand. Let's think of a ham sandwich. The "ham" is the Government, the "sandwich" is the Law. You take away the ham (the Government), and you ruin the sandwich. There is no sandwich. Just two pieces of bread. Two pieces of bread sucks without ham, man, I'm telling you.

And.. by the way.. organized crime is STILL working. It's not as you seem to have put it, that it magically ceased to exist after the Prohibition Act was repealed.

And, tell me... if the government didn't prevent September 11th, explain to me how your oh-so-precious lack of government would've done such?

 

Did you notice how we all gave reasons at some point, or did you just skip most of the thread including the intro?

Alternatively 9/11 would never have happened if fundamentalist Islam never existed too.

Paradox. Anarchy is the lack of any coherency such as a common goal. Even if you just have drug gangs, that still isn't anarchy (as there is anarchy within the gangs themselves... it's somewhat like scaled down nations in that regard)

Please rationalise these beliefs.

 

for sure.

So yeah, I don’t believe that we, as humans, can make any type of government work. In the long run, all governments fail, or fall. but more and more we go back to the Greek days, where every one had a voice (well besides for women‘s voices.)
So Why do we need a leader. What makes them so special that they are over every one else? Why do we give them more rights to govern us. That’s not right, they are not common gods, But they can make it shower down fire upon the “wicket.”
Money in its self is a big thing. We should just go back to the barter system. It works the best, and no one can screw others, cause they would be gotten back just as bad. True, just like in any other system, this one has as many problems.
I do believe in a government, but I can see anarchy working. Its just like capitalism in the beginning. But right now Communism is only a theory, and so is anarchism, and so is socialism. But what some of you are doing right now is what was done in the whole red scare after ww2, deeming some one unfit for there ideas.
People that think Anarchism can work have a Lot of belief in humanity, sad that I don’t have that. I do hate the idea that the rich are more powerful then me, and I do hate that. And until we get rid of the rich, governments of All kinds will not work. Anarchy is the easiest way to get rid of the rich. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have anything against being rich, I am not jealous of there money. So greed is what anarchy limits.
It does (as a system) have a lot of good, and a lot of bad. I am more or less a socialist, cause I believe that that’s the best system that we have came up with.

 

Okay... I'm not going to waste my time to translate this, I'll make this nice and quick.

First of all, don't you ****ing DARE stick every white person together because I can do the same and say every black person is a gang-banging thug of a thief and a murderer and a rapist. So, using your dip**** logic, that makes this factoid true, which completely and utterly defends the reaction of others. Thankfully, you're as wrong as wrong can be.

Second... do you even KNOW what our Government IS? We don't HAVE one leader, you fool. Our Government is a tripod of equally counteracting forces, and then the lower powers, all of which come down to the power of the people, it's to US who are put into most of those positions.

Next... WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN!? Did you take ANY History classes whatsoever?! Communism is NOT a bloody theory. It has been TRIED and both Russia and China got ****ed over and shifted back to another form of Government, not because it's a theory, but because Communism sucks.

I swear to all that is Holy, I was trying to take this all lightly and for a while I was trying to be nice but, My GOD you just make it so ****ing hard because you basically ignore everyone's posts but your own! It's BEYOND obvious that you don't even have the slightest CLUE has to what in the Hell you are talking about.

You know what? Communism was a way to get rid of the rich too. LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO RUSSIA AND CHINA WHEN THEY WERE COMMUNIST. And now where are they now? Oh. That's right.

NOT COMMUNIST.

For the love of all that is Holy, get a ****ing clue.

[/end rant]

 

my problem with anarchy is that it can never happen. if you remove one government, then another, potentially worse government could step up to the plate. this happened in russia if i remember my history correctly. the people were unhappy with the romanov's way of ruling, so they got rid of them. who did they get in return? stalin.