Debate Anarchy

Are you COMPLETELY ignorant or something?! For simplicities sake lets look at the two most famous Greek city states....

Athens: Did allow all citizens in the government procedures EXCEPT SLAVES AND WOMEN. That by definition means NOT everyone did, only a certain specific class (in this case, males who aren't slaves). If I said that only women working in McDonalds could vote, would you say everyone got to have their hand in it?

Sparta: Essentially totalitarianism.

Oh and guess which one ended up winning the war?

Except that the president is countered by the senate, among other power balances and checks.

...What?! The barter system is INCREDIBLY prone to ripping people off! Let's say, for example, I have 100 barrels of oil, and I am one of the only sources of oil. I can pretty much set my price as high as I want and nobody can do anything because they NEED my oil.

Asking someone to explain how anarchy could possibly work is NOT like the McCarthy era.

No it isn't, particularly with the barter system in place, as seen in my earlier example.

Maybe you're scared. To me we're all just meat, guts, blood, bone and brain matter in a bag made of skin at the end of the day, regardless of the colouration of said bag.

 

Not everyone in Greece had a voice. In fact, very few did. Yes, democracy is a Greek word, and was thought up by a Greek, but that doesn't mean it was used by them. They had a despot system. Ever hear of Alexander the Great? True, he was a Macedonian, but he was supreme head of the Greek Empire for a time.

And as far as the first bit goes, that's not a reason we should resort to anarchy. You're doing the same thing as before: giving an example of why current and past systems suck, and saying we should thus just give up any semblance of government anyway.

We need a leader not because we worship them, or because they're special. You say you're going to be a sociology major? Surely, then, you've looked into the creation of feudalism, and why it was such a lifesaver at the time.

No idea what you were trying to say in that last sentence.

Any system will have problems, and any system will have the human concept of greed thrown in. The barter system was perhaps the most corrupt in this regard. Currency actually makes sure that happens as minimally as possible.

Capitalism, communism, and socialism are all economic systems, not government systems. True, they are usually associated with an accompanying governmental system, but they aren't the government itself.

Communism isn't a theory, it's a way of life. As are socialism, capitalism, and anarchy.

And the Red Scare was different. The government was overthrown, and they then essentially threatened the rest of the world that they'd do the same everywhere else. they weren't afraid of the idea of communism, they were afraid of the idea of drastic change.

This is communism. Essentially, you're siding with Marx, and not anarchy.

So, you're racist because you think everyone else is racist? Wow.

 

Russia...... how do i say...... ok i got it..... lets say that we have an idea, right, well lets take the idea, and turn it in to a different idea. no what, that’s no good. RUSSIA was not a true communist country. Ask any one that has any idea about china and Russia. China is still communist, so is north Korea. I never heard anything of them changing. And I have been to classes. What is communism. Can you tell me? I thought it was a system where every one is equal. I thought it was deveped by Karl Marks. But the Stalin communism you speak off was not a real communism system. As I recall every one that stud up to Stalin fell by his hand. That sounds like a dictator to me.

 

To act as a figurehead, to streamline things, and to provide a voice of authority when the masses can't get along. EVERY social creature, from bees all the way up to humans, has a hierarchy of some sort. It makes things run more smoothly than when an entire community tries to function on an individual basis, without cohesion.

Not true. Just like with capitalism, people who can make a more convincing sales pitch will still get a better deal.

Besides, a barter-only system isn't very functional in a large modernized society. We would lose catalogues and over-the-computer purchasing power. Seriously, you think it would work better if we had to bring 1000 fresh eggs to the store to trade with in order to get a new TV?

You think there wouldn't be differences in wealth in an anarchist society? Heh. Sure there wouldn't.

How, though? The only rule within anarchy would be majority rule - and last I checked, the majority of people are greedy.

First, if you want to hold that idea, please keep it to yourself unless you're prepared to defend yourself with an argument better than that one. Second, generalizing based on race like that is absolutely juvenile, not to mention foolish. Third, racial arguments have NO place in this thread.

For the record, I'm about as white as a person is gonna get - and I'm not stupid enough to imagine that an entire ethnic group is out to get me. I look forward to seeing moderator reactions to what you've been saying.

 

Yes, I know that.

So have I. One of my classes, "20th Century History", was even taught by a left-winger. I know what communism is, trust me.

The name is Marx, and it's actually a system with no monetary system at all. This would, normally, allow for people to be equal. However, as I stated before, greed gets into every system.

He was a dictator. If you READ the history books, they call that form of government "Stalinism". Again, greed came into play.

You know, we spend a lot of money on razor blades, too. Does that mean we all want to slit our wrists?

 

no matter how you put it, there is no government without its downsides. communism may eliminate the 'higher class' but as a result, the government controls everything and much of the population is poor.

im not taking stuff out of context. i am talking from personal experience. im from the deep south otherwise known as mississippi, mon ami. in my town, no one was truly afraid of the black population, or vice versa. many white people had black friends, including myself.

 

Communism also removes the drive to innovate by making everyone equal in every factor, hence weakening science. Consider, if you will, how many technological advances are due either to a war or due to a civilian tech altered for the military. In communism there is no way to have something thats better than anothers. Why maintain the status quo when you can achieve newer, better levels?

For example, lets simply take the toilet. You don't need a toilet, you can crap in an outhouse. What would you rather do, though? Also, due to the toilet, our lives are at least a little more sanitary. However with communism that wouldn't have happened because there'd be no need to improve on an existing concept.

I spend a lot on security? Ok, look. We have no security in the house I'm living in now aside from standard door locks, and even then the majority of the year these doors were not even locked. Yet I live in a racially diverse area - there are sufficient muslims to create the need for local mosques; there are enough koreans to make korean a third language choice on our ATMs, and theres a fair number of black people here too. Do I give a **** about where these people came from or what they worship? Nope.

Keep clinging to your delusions.

 

a good example of the technology bit is that russia got the head start on the space program, but because there is really no motivation in that country, we have surpassed them big time.

 

the research

Anarchism: Arguments for and against
By: Albert Meltzer
A.K Press San Francisco, CA 2000
Page 19- People are born free with inalienable rights. Duties and imposed obligations are lies (patriotism and duty).

Page 19- The inalienable tenets of anarchism are: people are born free, people are born free then slavery is murder, as slavery is murder property is theft, property being theft government then is tyranny, Government being tyranny anarchy is liberty.

Page 19- People are born free so imposed obligations such as patriotism and submissions are lies.

Page 19- Since people cannot walk into private place and lands means part of humanities earth has been taken from him.

Page 19- In a socialized society the state becomes obsolete and then tyrannical due to it need to survive.

Page 19- Those who believe government is necessary will view anarchy as disorder and those who view government as unnecessary will view anarchy as liberty.

Page 22- Revoltutionary anarchy stems from class struggle. Marxists are different then Anarchists. The “new left” was created by whites in guilt for the ills of society that they did not indeed suffer from. Revolutionary libertarians need not to exploit. Industrialisation has led to a new working class of less prodective roles (manufacturing) and to service jobs like cashiering, which have no industrial muscle. Combine the industrial proletariat and the anarchist movement we see the creation of anarcho-syndicalism.

Syndicalism- a radical political movement that advocates bringing industry and government under the control of labor unions. The use of direct action.


Edited by Robert Hoffman, Anarchism, Atherton Press, 70 fifth avenue, New York 10011
George Bernard Shaw, Chapter 8
The impossibilities of Anarchism

Page 98- Social-Democracy would create a system where every one is given equal everthing, which is binding to those who consider themselves unique.

Page 100- Exploring the idea of a “communist anarchist” Shaw explains that in order to collect taxes a authority must be established and a authority to punich those unwilling to pay those taxes (government).

Page 101- Man complains on being man.
Page 102- Communism satisfies the needs of despering goods and services but fails when suppies become limited.

Page 107- It is easier for the majority to entertain the minority then it is to suppress it.

Edited by: Pennock, Chapman, Anarchism

Page 115- The philosophical anarchist is one that doubts any assertion of legitimate authority on behalf of a government.

Page 115- The anarchist-skeptic insists on doing everything with “complete justication.”

Richard A. Falk
Page 64- Many reasons account for the lack of attention for anarchism globally. Anarchism reflects all of modern revolutionary theory, the association of anarchy and disorder, The state pushed belief that anarchists are terrorists.

Page 67- The anarchist isn’t interested in eliminating all forms of human authority but the exploitive institutions.

 

Not going to bother quoting everything here. You basically quote a few other people, word for word, and that's it. As I asked before, what are YOUR opinions on it? Just spouting what others have said does not help you to think for yourself.

 

"Mommy mommy, the mean people disagree with me due to rationality! Waaaaaaah!!!"

Pffft, to be blunt you are born with NO guarantees of anything and nature does not respect your rights. You really have no natural rights.

Hooray for rhetoric.

Nobody said you had to be a patriot. If you don't like it you can protest or you can even move somewhere else.

So? Do you think, say, a territorial predator is going to respect your "inalienable" rights when you walk into a section of land it feels is its own?

Y'know Canada has socialist leanings, right? We haven't lost the federal or provincial governments...

What does this have to do with anything?

If this thing used grammar properly, I'd care, but this is still rhetoric with no real talk of HOW ANARCHY WOULD WORK.

Oooo, MORE beaurocracy to slow everything down.

But how far do you take it? Go too far in trying to please the minority and you end up with, frankly, a wussified government and a law system that gets bogged down in frivolous lawsuits.


Ok, look. You have to understand something. YOU HAVE TO CONVINCE US WHY WE WOULD WANT TO GO FOR AN ANARCHIST LIFESTYLE. Not post rhetoric!

 

That wasn't research. Research is looking up what others have said about the subject, then taking the time to think and reason with yourself what you found right or wrong about what you just read.

Yes. Yes they do. And you know what? In an anarchy, they'd be allowed to do more than just gang bang you here in a forum.

Every human is afraid of every other human. It's natural instinct. It's not just one race.

I think you just proved half of Amon's points with these three sentences.

That's an entirely different debate, and I'm not going to get into that here.

 

We're not the ones who think mankind will become the carebears wankfest the second the government is gone.

So your argument for your not being able to come up with a reason to go to anarchy specifically is that you don't feel like researching?

Like your brother?