Anarchy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

You were not an anarchist if you're following the definition you gave.

Anarchism means no one's on top, the world is controlled by free enterprise, everything is done through supply and demand, it means basically that the citizens legitimize everything, not just their leader or constitution that decides the legitimized policy. With anarchy, there is no set policy, its the free market at it's highest potential because no one can say one can't do something due to the law, everything must be compromised so all parties are in agreement. No one's hand is forced, unless of course its literally forced.

---

are you talking to me?

because if you are I'm really confused as the definition I gave *of which I gave none* doesn't describe anarchy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is an impossible state of mankind. Without government, gangs rise up immediately and become governments. The only thing to stop the gangs from rising up and becoming governments is a government. Anarchy is impossible.

---

Yes, it can't happen. I for one would not feel safe without some kind of law and order to protect me. I think the same about pacifism. I'd love to live in a pacifist society if all societies are pacifist. But if some despot sends a bomber over the seas towards my country I'd happily see it shot down.

Bu

Im not going to claim to be an expert on govermental policy, but I dont think we are at the point yet to say that humans could live without law. Like UM said, the only way to stop a group that bands together to take over is to make a group of your own, lest the first group force you in to submission. team work is a beautiful thing, but to have a team, you do have to have specialists, and this is the start of a hirarchy. The only way is if all humans were pacifists, and as long as there are some people who want "more" resources, there will always be conflict.

I hope some day we are able to produce enough resources for everybody, but I dont see it happening until we can break the laws of conservation and create matter from nothing

I'd rather live on my own pirate ship with no laws. I would feel safer.

btw if you think there is not enough for everyone. You must be blind. Like. We can go to the moon. But not feed ourself and make a home?

surrre.

We could give people basic needs. If anyone cared.

Firstly, I would appreciate it if you didnt talk down to me by calling me blind, as far as we know, either one of our opinions is just as valid. If you didnt mean to talk down to me, you certainly came off that way.

My point wasnt that there isnt enough for everyone, my point was, no matter what you are going to have groups who will try to dominate other groups and you will always have greedy people try to take over. You have to band together to defend against these people. So, even if there is enough for everyone, there will still always be groups who want "more". The trick is to not become a group like that after you repel a group like that.

If we take your pirate ship example, how will you defend yourself if another ship with multiple assailents attacks you simply because they are greedy and you are an easy target?

I don't think peaceful anarchy can exist at this stage of technological development mainly due to the reasons already stated. There is hope in the future however.

To explain this I will divide all goods into 2 categories. Intulectual goods and Material goods. Material goods are things that have to be manufactured. This consists of pretty much every physical object. Intellectual goods are things that are simply an re-arrangement of existing information. This could be a computer program, a picture, a book or even blueprints for a material good.

The only way that I think stable anarchy can be attained is if the government sets up a purely automated system to create all material goods then steps down.

Without the need to fight for material goods, the world would no longer be run by money and power but individual worth. There would be no need to work for money so everyone would do what they wished. The world would be run on personnel respect. You create something great or work to create something great and you become of very high standing in society. Pop stars would no longer be money grubbing models because they wouldn't need money. Instead they might actually focus on music instead of just selling their next CD. If the automated processes started to become out of date, someone would work to improve them because thats what they want to do.

IMO, thats the only way to achieve peaceful anarchy.

Anarchy is lawlessness, chaos. To give you a brief idea of no government needed, take a look at New Orleans when the catastrophe hit. Women were raped and murdered, people were going on pleasurable killing sprees, people were fending for themselves only. Humanity, in the darkest of times, shows their true honorable or cowardly self.

Without a form of government to sustain law, then there would be no aid for those attempting to support stabilization with an economy or the manufacture of goods, for there would be those who would want to come in and sweep in for control or just to destroy and kill.

Humanity simply is not ready for it yet. I think the only true system that could work would be to have a global senate, similar to the UN but with more action and less talk, and allowing this senate to establish global laws and regulations.

Anarchy would be the best option if human beings were smart and agreeable. Since we are not, I believe a (even if primitive) kind of government is necessary. I'd love to live i na peaceful, anarchist society, though. I do not believe in god, and sincerely I doubt he would ever come down here and use a crown or something (if he existed).

For now I'm in favour of women in the government: it's been proven women have better empathy and sense of community.

Yo uall have that idea that anarchy is chaos because of brainwashing. They teach that idea at school to prevent the governement from being taken over. True anarchy doesn't mean lack of rules: it means only rules which are generally accepted apply.