Anarchists Beware

[Amortisatie]

*Sorry if this is wrong forum

Here is a thread on Anarchy

This thread is filled with morons and some of you might rage and/or wish death upon alot of people, you have been warned

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/571909/2

^ Prepare to facepalm, alot

Here be an asswipe

Some ignorant asswipe Wrote:Bad, so bad. You should be shot for even thinking of the idea's of Anarchy.

Humans, in the most part, are completely corruptable and untrustworthy. To live in a stable society you are going to need Order. That is the most important thing a government can provide, which is Order. Without order there is no country, no system, and complete chaos.

Imagine, if you can, the United States had no government whatsoever. Picture it in your head that you wake up one morning and the news organizations tell you that Washington and every govenor in the USA has dissolved and given up their power. Once that happens police aren't paid their dues so they have no reason to work. Crime takes over. Teachers can't teach because its not safe in the schools anymore and are not paid. So this increases the uneducation. Firemen will no put out fires because its not safe and no pay. Hospitals cannot help the sick because of the crime and utter chaos.

It's a total breakdown of society as people start to loot, kill, steal, and destroy. Its a point where society hits rock bottom.

Eventually (and I assume this won't be long) people are going to get sick of no law and order. So eventually someone IS going to step up and take control of the country or states or whatever. Someone is going to take control. Either its going to be someone who has had enough of the nonsense or a person who wants complete power.

If the above doesn't happen first I assume another country will invade or the EU will send troops to "save" the country and put back stability I suppose.

[Trar]

Someone needs to tell them that anarchy is simply the idea of having no government. Sure, things would be less controlled, but sometimes that's a good thing. Then, said person should impale them on a rusty spike, rip their pancreas out with their bare hands and force-feed it to them while their nostrils get literally raped by a man with two 12-foot long penises.

[Amortisatie]

Trar Wrote:Someone needs to tell them that anarchy is simply the idea of having no government. Sure, things would be less controlled, but sometimes that's a good thing. Then, said person should impale them on a rusty spike, rip their pancreas out with their bare hands and force-feed it to them while their nostrils get literally raped by a man with two 12-foot long penises.

[whistlingwings]

I don't necessarily support anarchy, I'm not outright calling it a horrible idea but people who are not anarchists shouldn't be criticised for it.

[Trar]

Amortisatie Wrote:

Trar Wrote:Someone needs to tell them that anarchy is simply the idea of having no government. Sure, things would be less controlled, but sometimes that's a good thing. Then, said person should impale them on a rusty spike, rip their pancreas out with their bare hands and force-feed it to them while their nostrils get literally raped by a man with two 12-foot long penises.

lol i am the master of inhumane torture

[Amortisatie]

whistlingwings Wrote:I don't necessarily support anarchy, I'm not outright calling it a horrible idea but people who are not anarchists shouldn't be criticised for it.

People who are anarchists shouldn't be criticized for being anarchists either

[Freak]

I disagree with Amortisatie because "alot" is actually two words.

And all forms of government have their negative and positive aspects: this argument doesn't really have any place in this debate yet; however, it will be here when someone says: "PERSON X IS A COMPLETE SHITFACE MORON FOR THINKING ANARCHY SUCKS BECAUSE CAPITALISM IS EVIL!"

I've actually seen that argument on this forum.

Would anyone like to discuss the philosophical and practicality aspects of anarchy?

[Amortisatie]

Freak Wrote:I disagree with Amortisatie because "alot" is actually two words.

And all forms of government have their negative and positive aspects: this argument doesn't really have any place in this debate yet; however, it will be here when someone says: "PERSON X IS A COMPLETE SHITFACE MORON FOR THINKING ANARCHY SUCKS BECAUSE CAPITALISM IS EVIL!"

I've actually seen that argument on this forum.

Would anyone like to discuss the philosophical and practicality aspects of anarchy?

Gr@mmar Nazi!! Head for zeh hillz!

Uhm, sure, why not?

My question now is: If there was anarchy, what would happen if somebody tried to rise up and be a leader?

[Milk2Go]

People won't start killing people just because a law that says they can't is repealed.

Also, the first humans on earth lived in anarchy. It obviously wasn't chaos; otherwise, the current human population would be a lot smaller.

[Milk2Go]

Amortisatie Wrote:My question now is: If there was anarchy, what would happen if somebody tried to rise up and be a leader?

The way it should work is that the want-to-be leader would not have any power, as people simply wouldn't do what he says. The leader couldn't pass a law forcing people to obey him, as nobody would enforce it or follow it. Therefore, it would be impossible for a leader to exist. However, if people did enforce it, people would simply fight back.
But that's the way it should work.

The way it would most likely work is people would be so insecure and unconfident that they wouldn't dream of living in a world where someone doesn't tell them what to do.

[Amortisatie]

BobManPerson Wrote:

Amortisatie Wrote:My question now is: If there was anarchy, what would happen if somebody tried to rise up and be a leader?

The way it should work is that the want-to-be leader would not have any power, as people simply wouldn't do what he says. The leader couldn't pass a law forcing people to obey him, as nobody would enforce it or follow it. Therefore, it would be impossible for a leader to exist. However, if people did enforce it, people would simply fight back.
But that's the way it should work.

The way it would most likely work is people would be so insecure and unconfident that they wouldn't dream of living in a world where someone doesn't tell them what to do.

kk, I am bad at backing up my points, so I will take the place of some anti-anarchy fanatic

here I go:

But without government, nobody would have electricity or running water becuz the govermentz makes sure it comes to us! It would be an all-out war for resources! And nobody would be motivated to do anything!

[Freak]

Amortisatie Wrote:My question now is: If there was anarchy, what would happen if somebody tried to rise up and be a leader?

What leader?

And I wasn't making fun of your grammar; I was making fun of your stupidity, which tagged along with it (as illustrated by your reply to my correction of your grammar).

The first humans didn't necessarily have anarchy, they still had a social hierarchy. And that social hierarchy is much like our political hierarchy. The ones at the top have power (to influence, to decide) like elders or presidents, the ones at the bottom had very little power: the exiled or the impoverished, and the ones at the bottom serve the ones at the top.

See, it's almost exactly the same.


And we think we've evolved, lolzorgz.

[Leon Kinotolian]

Freak Wrote:The first humans didn't necessarily have anarchy, they still had a social hierarchy. And that social hierarchy is much like our political hierarchy. The ones at the top have power (to influence, to decide) like elders or presidents, the ones at the bottom had very little power: the exiled or the impoverished, and the ones at the bottom serve the ones at the top.

Are you thinking of the caste system, famously invented and implemented by the Babylonian Empire and similar early civilizations?

[Alucard483]

Amortisatie Wrote:People who are anarchists shouldn't be criticized for being anarchists either

OH, and what is deserving of the people on the right of the spectrum?

BobManPerson Wrote:Also, the first humans on earth lived in anarchy. It obviously wasn't chaos; otherwise, the current human population would be a lot smaller.

Um, unless you are talking about the crack of fucking evolution then you are dearly mistaken. Even apes have a hierarchy of leadership; the Alpha down. In the early days the 'rulers' were the elders and they made the decisions. It also wasnt chaos becuase people did not live in large dense polulance. A tribe was very small and self contained. It would not have been uncommon for these people to have never seen another human outside of thier own tribe.

BobManPerson Wrote:

Amortisatie Wrote:My question now is: If there was anarchy, what would happen if somebody tried to rise up and be a leader?

The way it should work is that the want-to-be leader would not have any power, as people simply wouldn't do what he says. The leader couldn't pass a law forcing people to obey him, as nobody would enforce it or follow it. Therefore, it would be impossible for a leader to exist. However, if people did enforce it, people would simply fight back.
But that's the way it should work.

lol wut. The leader TAKES power. The power of having an Ak-47 Kilashinkov assault weapon shoved into your face creates fear. Laws are based on fear; actions and fear of repercusions. As for fighting back, if this dude has enough power to capture, hold and rule a sizable piece of land it is a relativly safe bet that those rebeling will loose unless lead by a leader of thier own on a massive scale. 'State' millitias? A place can only find so many people that are willing to put thier lives on the line like that. The opposing force obviously has enough man power, organization and training to effectivly wipe out any resistance or they would not have gotten so far. Millitias would easily be sweeped aside because they lack training, hardwear and leadership.


Anarchy, it works on paper and in theory however in reality is is doomed to the same sad fate as communism

[Trar]

Alucard483 Wrote:

Amortisatie Wrote:People who are anarchists shouldn't be criticized for being anarchists either

OH, and what is deserving of the people on the right of the spectrum?

BobManPerson Wrote:Also, the first humans on earth lived in anarchy. It obviously wasn't chaos; otherwise, the current human population would be a lot smaller.

Um, unless you are talking about the crack of fucking evolution then you are dearly mistaken. Even apes have a hierarchy of leadership; the Alpha down. In the early days the 'rulers' were the elders and they made the decisions. It also wasnt chaos becuase people did not live in large dense polulance. A tribe was very small and self contained. It would not have been uncommon for these people to have never seen another human outside of thier own tribe.

BobManPerson Wrote:

Amortisatie Wrote:My question now is: If there was anarchy, what would happen if somebody tried to rise up and be a leader?

The way it should work is that the want-to-be leader would not have any power, as people simply wouldn't do what he says. The leader couldn't pass a law forcing people to obey him, as nobody would enforce it or follow it. Therefore, it would be impossible for a leader to exist. However, if people did enforce it, people would simply fight back.
But that's the way it should work.

lol wut. The leader TAKES power. The power of having an Ak-47 Kilashinkov assault weapon shoved into your face creates fear. Laws are based on fear; actions and fear of repercusions. As for fighting back, if this dude has enough power to capture, hold and rule a sizable piece of land it is a relativly safe bet that those rebeling will loose unless lead by a leader of thier own on a massive scale. 'State' millitias? A place can only find so many people that are willing to put thier lives on the line like that. The opposing force obviously has enough man power, organization and training to effectivly wipe out any resistance or they would not have gotten so far. Millitias would easily be sweeped aside because they lack training, hardwear and leadership.


Anarchy, it works on paper and in theory however in reality is is doomed to the same sad fate as communism

I guess we're doomed to a Capitalist world.

[Faby]

stupid person Wrote:Humans, in the most part, are completely corruptable and untrustworthy.

And leaders are, of course, completely non-human aliens from outer space. Not people. No, not at all.

I'm very much in favour for anarchy, but as long as a society is without education, you cannot have anarchy. So I'm standing here, waiting and growing a big, white beard for the day when humans realise it's not leaders they need, but compassion and common sense and education.

[Alucard483]

Trar Wrote:I guess we're doomed to a Capitalist world.

Then move to North Korea so you can experiance life to the fullest. Seriously Im sure its much better over there.

[psychopath]

Alucard483 Wrote:

Trar Wrote:I guess we're doomed to a Capitalist world.

Then move to North Korea so you can experiance life to the fullest. Seriously Im sure its much better over there.

I agree, North Korea is a pretty cool place.

[Desu]

Freak Wrote:

Amortisatie Wrote:My question now is: If there was anarchy, what would happen if somebody tried to rise up and be a leader?

What leader?

And I wasn't making fun of your grammar; I was making fun of your stupidity, which tagged along with it (as illustrated by your reply to my correction of your grammar).

The first humans didn't necessarily have anarchy, they still had a social hierarchy. And that social hierarchy is much like our political hierarchy. The ones at the top have power (to influence, to decide) like elders or presidents, the ones at the bottom had very little power: the exiled or the impoverished, and the ones at the bottom serve the ones at the top.

See, it's almost exactly the same.


And we think we've evolved, lolzorgz.

You're talking about the first organized polities in civilization, when humans became sedentery.

Homo sapiens pre-civilization were entirely egalitarian.

[Amortisatie]

Freak Wrote:

Amortisatie Wrote:My question now is: If there was anarchy, what would happen if somebody tried to rise up and be a leader?

What leader?

And I wasn't making fun of your grammar; I was making fun of your stupidity, which tagged along with it (as illustrated by your reply to my correction of your grammar).

My stupidity?
Explain?

[Sociopath]

if someone assumed power then others wouldnt follow, evryone could prevent fear if they had a gun to protect them, and the others would kill the leader.

NOT having a law is a GOOD thing, consider this...

Back in the 70's America made a law that all drivers must wear a seatbelt to prevent accidents, Know what happened then? The driver's mortality rate increased 5% (that means 5% more died) "Wait, what happend? Wasn't making everyone wear a seatbelt supposed to PREVENT deaths?" one might ask. The answer is that people started to get more overconfident and drive more aggressively, the government tricked people into thinking that it would help them, when actually, it hurt them but they didn't realize it. this is why ALL LAWS will oppress people, and therefore, should not exist.

[Alucard483]

TrueAnarchist Wrote:If someone assumed power then others wouldnt follow, everyone could prevent fear if they had a gun to protect them, and the others would kill the leader.

see

Alucard483 Wrote:As for fighting back, if this dude has enough power to capture, hold and rule a sizable piece of land it is a relativly safe bet that those rebeling will loose unless lead by a leader of thier own on a massive scale. 'State' millitias? A place can only find so many people that are willing to put thier lives on the line like that. The opposing force obviously has enough man power, organization and training to effectivly wipe out any resistance or they would not have gotten so far. Millitias would easily be sweeped aside because they lack training, hardwear and leadership.

Truedumbass Wrote:NOT having a law is a GOOD thing, consider this...

Back in the 70's America made a law that all drivers must wear a seatbelt to prevent accidents, Know what happened then? The driver's mortality rate increased 5% (that means 5% more died) "Wait, what happend? Wasn't making everyone wear a seatbelt supposed to PREVENT deaths?" one might ask. The answer is that people started to get more overconfident and drive more aggressively, the government tricked people into thinking that it would help them, when actually, it hurt them but they didn't realize it. this is why ALL LAWS will oppress people, and therefore, should not exist.

Your absolutly right. I fell sown some stairs once and got hurt. I say we go and burn every last staircase in the US to prevent everyone from getting hurt.

Are you a fucking retard? That question was rehtorical.

[Sociopath]

Alucard, ur a Fucking idiot who COMPLETELY missed the point, but I guess not everyone has Logic, I see you are one of them.

[Gobinu]

First of all you are talking about anarchy as if it is one concept. Well suprise - it is not. Differences between branches of anarchy are sometimes almost as huge as between anarchy and capitalism.
So good luck.
Second of all I like how one woman (black or rather Afro-American^^) said that while Europeans talk about pros and cons in caffe's or universities there are people dying, suffering now and they know it has to change.
People are saying there won't be anyone to stop people from killing each other^^
You know what? People are dying anyway, now, right this moment. State is killing people or clubing it's own citzens. And for me a chances that some guy will kill me in anarchy are smaller than now. There are way more people being killed in wars, than from some poor guys, proly without education who can stab you in dark aley at best^^. Only by removing the state you will gate rid of the biggest killer.

[Alucard483]

TrueAnarchist Wrote:Alucard, your a fucking idiot who COMPLETELY missed the point, but I guess not everyone has logic, I see you are one of them.

No, I got the point. It had a small valid point however it missed the bigger picture. And rather than acknowledge mine you decided to ignore it despit having history proving my point right every time someone that had no idea about social workings started an anarchist state. Yes, some people that are that hell bent on anarchy working will gladly die for anarchy. However there are not enough of those idiots people to stand against a nationalized army effectivly.

As for your seat belt example you did have a small point, however your rogerian claim was flawed. In retort to put it in perspective, I made a statement equaly as stupid.

Sorry, but the harder you try the harder you fail. This is a loosing argument from your side.

[Sociopath]

Alucard483 Wrote:

TrueAnarchist Wrote:Alucard, your a fucking idiot who COMPLETELY missed the point, but I guess not everyone has logic, I see you are one of them.

No, I got the point. It had a small valid point however it missed the bigger picture. And rather than acknowledge mine you decided to ignore it despit having history proving my point right every time someone that had no idea about social workings started an anarchist state. Yes, some people that are that hell bent on anarchy working will gladly die for anarchy. However there are not enough of those idiots people to stand against a nationalized army effectivly.

As for your seat belt example you did have a small point, however your rogerian claim was flawed. In retort to put it in perspective, I made a statement equaly as stupid.

Sorry, but the harder you try the harder you fail. This is a loosing argument from your side.

no, ur Failing, mabye u should reread posts like I do.
I didnt say the cars were killing people, i said the laws were

Reread posts

[Alucard483]

TrueAnarchist Wrote:Back in the 70's America made a law that all drivers must wear a seatbelt to prevent accidents, Know what happened then? The driver's mortality rate increased 5% (that means 5% more died) "Wait, what happend? Wasn't making everyone wear a seatbelt supposed to PREVENT deaths?" one might ask. The answer is that people started to get more overconfident and drive more aggressively, the government tricked people into thinking that it would help them, when actually, it hurt them but they didn't realize it. this is why ALL LAWS will oppress people, and therefore, should not exist.

Ok, we have a rogerian claim here, which is valid, but false

Seatbelts hurt people
Seatbelts are a law
All laws hurt people

Next we have another rogerian claim based from the previous rogerian claim (that was untrue if you remember)

Oppresion should not exist
Seatbelt laws are oppresive because they hurt people
Therefor laws should not exist

Invalid AND untrue.

[Sociopath]

no, i didnt say seatbelts hurt people, i said their overconfidence did
overconfidence comes from that
with no law we save lives
Therefore, getting rid of the LAW saves lives

[Bob Dole]

Alucard, just don't do it again.

Anyways, back on topic.

I personally view anarchism as the best form of (non)governance if it works. However, large scale anarchism has some serious logistics flaws to work out. In the end, I don't think humanity, in it's current form, can really make anarchism work. Anarchism is a system of constructive chaos, and as such, is extremely vulnerable to small things causing a ripple effect; as opposed to the current hierarchical systems of governance in place, which are much more intrinsically resilient when it comes to such things. A robust anarchist system would require that the vast majority of people in the system be very constructive, and that there would be minimal dissonance in the community. The hierarchical governments currently in place can stand up to much more dissonance, but sacrifice personal freedoms for increased resilience.

All in all, I think we should fix what is broken now. Work on removing the oligarchic elements from our systems of government, and have a real goddamn democracy, instead of the piss-poor excuse we have, where the economically powerful rule over those with less simply by virtue of their ability to buy the hearts and minds of those they seek to rule over. I think I'd prefer a more socialistic form of government. Where economic equality goes hand in hand with political equality. So the rich can't buy the system, and with very stringent laws concerning political office, they can't corrupt the system, either.

[Milk2Go]

http://www.snipeme.com/archive.php?year ... rchy_facts