Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Anarchy

Anarchy
August 05, 2013, 05:22:47 PM
A anarchy is a society without laws and gov. If the humans become anarchists (live in anarchy, not wanna one), will be a huge caos, isnt probally, it is logical. But he majority of the anarchists (who want it) who i know see anarchy as a paradise with "peace". Come on. Anarchy is like a person using a bazooka to walk in the street safelly. Why the anarchists are too dumbs? This is real allienation, because the majority of the anarchists are ""punks"", they dont have a own opinion.

My view of anarchy is right? Because it is basecally caos for me. And what is your opinion about this?

Re: Anarchy
August 05, 2013, 05:43:40 PM
Are you using a new language? It is difficult to understand.
But if I understand you, yes, you are right.
Anarchy is utter chaos.
Idiots imagine everyone will suddenly become nice and caring, and everyone will be peaceful.
Reality says otherwise.
It would be Mad Max.

Re: Anarchy
August 05, 2013, 05:50:03 PM
Quote
A anarchy is a society without laws and gov.

While that's probably how the majority of its supposed adherents view it, it's not a very nuanced view.

An anarchical arrangement isn't intrinsically opposed to law/gov, what it is opposed to is an involuntary servitude placed on an individual from a State construct that can't be escaped. If the functions undertaken by a state are placed under voluntary organizations that one can choose to opt out of, then there is no conflict.

At least, that's the American tradition of anarchy that I am most familiar with. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker

Re: Anarchy
August 05, 2013, 07:40:00 PM
Are you using a new language? It is difficult to understand.
But if I understand you, yes, you are right.
Anarchy is utter chaos.
Idiots imagine everyone will suddenly become nice and caring, and everyone will be peaceful.
Reality says otherwise.
It would be Mad Max.

sorry, im brazillian and my english is a shit

Re: Anarchy
August 05, 2013, 07:41:29 PM
Quote
A anarchy is a society without laws and gov.

While that's probably how the majority of its supposed adherents view it, it's not a very nuanced view.

An anarchical arrangement isn't intrinsically opposed to law/gov, what it is opposed to is an involuntary servitude placed on an individual from a State construct that can't be escaped. If the functions undertaken by a state are placed under voluntary organizations that one can choose to opt out of, then there is no conflict.

At least, that's the American tradition of anarchy that I am most familiar with. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker

damn, if this was the anarchy, some idiots change all this thing

Re: Anarchy
August 05, 2013, 07:47:33 PM
No, that's just the wikipedia version.
Written by anarchists to make anarchy great.

Re: Anarchy
August 05, 2013, 09:15:24 PM
Quote
Anarchy is utter chaos.
Idiots imagine everyone will suddenly become nice and caring, and everyone will be peaceful.
Reality says otherwise.
It would be Mad Max.

That is just your version, written to make anarchy seem awful.

See how easy it is to dismiss statements that way?

Quote
damn, if this was the anarchy, some idiots change all this thing

Well, I don't think the moderns actually changed anything, since they didn't start from the perspective of constructing a structured system of thought. They just are immature people who detest authority, probably stemming from childhood issues.

Re: Anarchy
August 06, 2013, 04:55:17 AM
Anarchism is more than just chaos, it is truly inhuman, impossible. Anyone who believes any form of anarchy can work should either read biology, spend some time in nature or shoot himself.

Why the anarchists are too dumbs?

They are out of control nerds who have 0 conception of normal human relationships. That is why anarchy tends to attract such fringe personalities. Neckbeards ahoy.

Re: Anarchy
August 06, 2013, 05:17:43 AM
Quote
Anarchism is more than just chaos, it is truly inhuman, impossible. Anyone who believes any form of anarchy can work should either read biology, spend some time in nature or shoot himself.

America was essentially an anarchy during its early years. There was no looting nor dystopic deviancy running rampant through the streets.

People acted sanely without need of coercion.

Easy to do that within a homogenous society. :)

Re: Anarchy
August 06, 2013, 05:51:54 AM
You were not there to witness the accuracy of your claim.
I've seen anarchy. It works fine until it doesn't.
Then it really doesn't.

Re: Anarchy
August 06, 2013, 06:01:15 AM
Quote
You were not there to witness the accuracy of your claim.


Come on. Are you now taking the position that historical study is meaningless?


Re: Anarchy
August 06, 2013, 07:08:09 AM
It has almost become meaningless, the way leftists in any position to, rewrite it to suit their agenda.

NHA

Re: Anarchy
August 06, 2013, 05:09:31 PM
Its kind of interesting to speculate what amount of government presence is actually required for order.

Quote
The Icelandic Commonwealth is often used as an example for anarchy. The settlement began, according to the Icelandic sources, about 870 A.D. Escaping the rule of king Harald Fairhair of Norway, the new settlers decided they could do very well without a king. They had chieftains, but one could choose a chieftain and could freely change allegiance. The government had one part-time employee (the Lawspeaker) and no executive branch.[5]
Criminals were forced to pay fines. These fines did not go to the state, but were restitution. If the criminal could not pay the fine imposed on him, then he could go to his chieftain or a group of family and friends, or some other alliance, and have them pay the fine for him, or if no one would represent him, he could work the fine off via slavery. The poor were at no disadvantage. The poor could sell their right to justice to someone, such as a chieftain or another respected peer, who could collect or make right upon the victim. In this respect, the right to transfer restitution acted as an equalizer for the poor. If a criminal would not pay his fine or submit to slavery, he was either outlawed or would possibly lose the support of his peers, depending on the severity of the crime, eventually discrediting himself. Even in times of war, it was understood that every man that was killed had to be paid for. This kept feuds short, and both parties always had the incentive to compromise and make amends because sustained violence is costly in this type of institutional framework.

I can see some loose form of anarchy working in maybe Japan or Iceland, but only under a certain population density. When cities get to the point where most people you pass are anonymous there is probably less incentive to be bound by social contracts.

Worst candidate for this would probably be the middle east ha.

Re: Anarchy
August 06, 2013, 08:00:36 PM
They say the laws in Iceland were not committed to writing until the year 1148.

Re: Anarchy
August 06, 2013, 08:07:25 PM
but only under a certain population density.

I think it is also a matter of the kind of people we are talking about. What works for Norwegians doesnt work for Africans. Like prisons for instance. Shitlibs are fond of saying the Norwegian prison system is excellent and a model for the world because of its low repeat offender rates, but they totally fail to realize that this is because the inmate population is Norwegians. Try that shit on Jamal and Darrius and see where it gets you.