Thread: my plan for anarchy

Nope. They would organize. The anarchy would last until there were two people there. Then it would be a power-based organization, like the mob. Anyone enter anarchia would have to answer to the organization, and they would eventualy grow into a formidable force to be reckoned with. I like the idea of anarchy, but it cannot last, and so it can never realy be.

Nature abhors a vacuum...

But it might not be bad if we plan in secret to nuke it once we reach critical mass.

Hmmmm... I wouldn't expect the orginazation to last very long, because I doubt they would all share exactly the same views, so basically at least one of them would probably try and take over or something.... But if you really think about it, we haven't had a government forever, it had to come from somewhere.

I like kimpossibles idea of nukeation, since who would really care if a bunch of morons got nuked in the middle of nowhere?

.yf

to even have the idea for such a thing is both one-sided and unoriginal. the same things could also be said about you and whatever faciast hypacritical so-called group you've been steriotyped into. every group of persons has been locked up in their own area and left to their own demise. we call it earth. Adam, im pisapointed in you for not picking this up, but George Carlin had this idea 30 years ago. the only diference is he made it funny.

How do we clear off all the scumbag goths, punks, anarchists, and gansters off of this earth? [/b]

Design gas chambers to resemble Hot Topics.

Design gas chambers to resemble Hot Topics.[/b]

LMFAO. Nice!

For the 'gangsters' design spinner rims that spin the lugs off tires at 75 mph.

Tell the goths that cutting yourself is only cool if you cut closer to the major arteries than all of your friends, and tally up the winners. lol.

Tell each of the anarchists, in secret, that they are each the true leader of the Anarchist Movement of America, and wait for them to tear each other apart defending a title that opposes their own belief system?

Drop all the punks in the middle of Harlem...and......well, thats pretty much it. lol.

We could get rid of all of the wps in our society by making it an anarchy, then the truly worlthless ones would starve to death or be poor and have noone to steal money for them.

It's an interesting proposal. I never heard Carlin talk about this, which routine was it?

huh well lol im not asking for the whole country to be anarchy, that would screw everything up. just a section of land like in the desert or mountains or something... then they could kill each other off

and inthemoment, hot topic's are already gas chambers

Originally posted by pOOp
See, the secret loophole is here, that those stupid anarchists think that they can actually function in a place where everybody is runnin around setting fires to buildings. They are too blind to see, that, just because they can go \"beat your neighbor with a bat\", their neighbor can also beat them with a bat. Basically they'll all die off pretty quickly, getting rid of the punk/goth problem that we have today. What we'll be left with is one supreme being who managed to not get killed and fought off the last remaining two or three, and lived off the fatta the land. He'll eventually die, not being able to mate or nuthin, and we can pave over this land and name it \"unorganized territory\", like they did way back when.

Why would people kill each other just because theres no government to stop them?

Even if they did, (advertising it as a place where you can kill people would probably attract a lot of freaks) I dont think they'd live very long anyway if you just dumped them in the middle of a desert!

Carlin had a joke called the 4 different types of people that he would send to square states. They were the Insane people, the murderers, the druggies, and the sex offenders.

But on what you were saying Anarchy is impossible. I mean doing what you want and having no rules is possible , but even if there were no source of central government everyone would be helping each other out which is called a commune, which is a type of communism.

Originally posted by pOOp
How do we clear off all the scumbag goths, punks, anarchists, and gansters off of this earth? Easy. Send 'em over to anarchia. I propose that we block off a section of desert or high mountains that nobody cares about (really who cares about the desert?) and call it anarchia. Then we send out commercials, flyers, and word-of-mouths telling all that, if they want, they can get a free ride over to anarchia, where they can do al they want, kill, maim, pillage, feast, and have unprotected sex all they want, all without the constraining limits of the government holding them down. See, the secret loophole is here, that those stupid anarchists think that they can actually function in a place where everybody is runnin around setting fires to buildings. They are too blind to see, that, just because they can go \"beat your neighbor with a bat\", their neighbor can also beat them with a bat. Basically they'll all die off pretty quickly, getting rid of the punk/goth problem that we have today. What we'll be left with is one supreme being who managed to not get killed and fought off the last remaining two or three, and lived off the fatta the land. He'll eventually die, not being able to mate or nuthin, and we can pave over this land and name it \"unorganized territory\", like they did way back when.

PPS: this plan also gives police something to say to the remaining pussy punks \"oy, go on ova to anawkia, ya ponk\"

We have already done what you asked. It is called Las Vegas Nevada. But what you need to understand about such places, and even about Hell, is that those in the positions of Power and Influence will do everything they can to Institutionalize their own Importance. These people will redefine the rules of the 'game' in order to benefit themselves and establish a status quo that retains themselves as being at the top of the pile. You see, you can't have a Rule that 'there will be no rules'.

Hell would be the perfect example of what you intend. Unlike what many people believe, God has had nothing to do with Hell except for his contribution to its membership. God only refuses to take certain souls into Heaven who go to Hell by default, and this Hell could be a virtual Paradise, if its inmates were so disposed as to make it that way. But it has always been in the best self interest of those already in Hell to protect their positions of power and influence, and so all new inmates into hell are rounded up and suppressed. Indeed, what would the first arrivals at "Anarchia" do to the subsequent busloads. The first arrivals would scatter and grab all available property rights to themselves, and then enslave and imprison those who would come on the second bus.

It would just become a dictatorship.

A bunch of people here have already hit the nail on the head: It wouldn't last long. It'd quickly fall back into a sort of gang-rule, possibly a very unstable monarchy, but that's doubtful.

Same reason that pure communism (not the Marxism-Leninism prevalent in the world) won't work correctly here on earth.

Not that communism or anarchy are bad ideas, they're perfect. Too perfect for people. It's impossible to gather a group of peope together and expect them to get along peacefully, and to each do their share.

For example, farmer John is part of an ideal communist society. Farmer John grows wheat for the whole village of Happyville, and gives a little bit to everybody in exchange for clothing, shelter, etc. Now farmer John suddenly finds a new method which will allow him to produce twice as much food! Happyville could cerainly use the extra food, since it's a growing town. Still, if farmer John uses the new technique, he'll have to work another two hours a day. But what extra does farmer John get for that extra two hours of work? Nothing. He still recieves only what he needs from the other villagers, and no more.
Now, if farmer John was a genuinely nice guy, he might actually use the new method. And there's a lot of nice guys in the world. But there aren't enough: There's always somebody nicer, and therefore always somebody more selfish as well. Eventually, somewhere, there'll be a flaw in the system: A carpenter who only puts a stud every eight feet instead of every three feet because it means less work. A tailor who doesn't properly sew on the buttons because it takes too long. Eventually, the town becomes inoperative, because most of the people are only putting in the minimum amount of effort, because they get the same thing back regardless.

So if you sent off all the Anarchists to Anarchia, and it'll quickly change to gang rule. Once they realize their mortality and how weak and unprotected they are, two friends will join forces. Or even two enemies, it makes no difference. With two people on a team instead of one, they'll quickly gain resources and will be able to live more comfortably. It won't take long before others follow suit, or one-up them by forming small groups and gangs. Quickly, even within a week, they'll move from two-man teams to fifty-member gangs and more. Eventually it will cool off and as the society grows they'll move back to more civilized rule, albeit very slowly. Likely longer than a single lifetime. Still, the people will have learned nothing. Even if they were the most picked on, beat up freak in Anarchia, once they're back in society they'll revert to their past beliefs. Usually such types aren't prone to learning from experience.

I think they should put all the christians in boxes.

im anarchist and i accually think that is a great idea.
anarchy is a great system. if Bob attacks Greg, Gregs friends will come and attack bob, then bob's friends will come and attack gregs friends, then everyone will learn that Bob started the fight, and help greg, and greg will win, unless he's dead, then his friends will live in his honor. There will be a LOT of war, but even more freedom. that is the concept of anarchy.

with the concept of the collapsing economic activities, you need to remember the system. everyone takes what they need. If what they need hasnt been made yet, they'll trade someone something for it. if everyone becomes lazy and stops trying, then everyone will choose a profession that they need the most, and the economy will start all over again.

Originally posted by xcrissxcrossx
im anarchist and i accually think that is a great idea.
anarchy is a great system. if Bob attacks Greg, Gregs friends will come and attack bob, then bob's friends will come and attack gregs friends, then everyone will learn that Bob started the fight, and help greg, and greg will win, unless he's dead, then his friends will live in his honor. There will be a LOT of war, but even more freedom. that is the concept of anarchy.

with the concept of the collapsing economic activities, you need to remember the system. everyone takes what they need. If what they need hasnt been made yet, they'll trade someone *something for it. if everyone becomes lazy and stops trying, then everyone will choose a profession that they need the most, and the economy will start all over again.

yeah....not likely. government exists because humans naturally band together in little groups that look out for each other. those groups get bigger and more powerful and become tribes, there is usually a chief of some kind. the tribes get more and more followers and then they start marking off their territory which they protect. pretty soon it's back to the way it's always been...

here's why that would never happen: crime lords would head on over there, strong arm any punks who got in their way, set up a base guarded with thugs bearing contraband weapons, and then grow contraband substances with an indoor growing system, and then smuggle them into countries with contraband laws. there would have to be no way out of anarchia once you enter.

Anarchy is a highly misunderstood form of 'government'

The only thing it stands for is the absence of governement.

Most people think that no government = chaos, disorder, fires, mob rule, etc

The original idea behind anarchy was that people would just act decent and help eachother out without the pressures, deadlines, regulations and restrictions of an organized government.

But now it is believed that anarchy means civil disorder... which, sadly, does tend to happen when there is a lack of government.

Not that communism or anarchy are bad ideas, they're perfect. Too perfect for people. It's impossible to gather a group of peope together and expect them to get along peacefully, and to each do their share. [/b]

well, the whole point of anarchism is that there is no external ruler or force 'gathering' a group of people together except each individual's personal desire. so, it is entirely possible for a group of people to get along peacefully, with each doing their share. when a group gathers itself, as opposed to 'being gathered', nobody is present who does not want to be.
if someone wants to exploit, they would be shunned. if someone wants to freeload, they would be told to do their part, or go elsewhere.

historically, there have been many such groups which were built on freely cooperating individuals working harmoniously towards a common goal. the essenes and pythagoreans being two of my favourites.


is the entire world capable of harmonious anarchy at the moment? of course not. presently it is impossible on a grand scale. but if i believed it were perpetually impossible i would have committed suicide years ago.

Tsen, let's say that you and i were the only people in a secluded location..do you think we could function in what you termed a 'perfect' way, where we each freely do our part to better both our existences?

if so, we would be a group, working harmoniously together of our own volition. there's nothing impossible about that. it seems like the easiest thing in the world for me...why so little faith in the rest of humanity?

we are young

Originally posted by Asher
is the entire world capable of harmonious anarchy at the moment? of course not. presently it is impossible on a grand scale. but if i believed it were perpetually impossible i would have committed suicide years ago.

Why would you even want to live in such a world? Where's the production capacity? Could a society like that develop technology to share art? cure disease? explore space?

No.

Originally posted by bradybaker

Why would you even want to live in such a world? Where's the production capacity? Could a society like that develop technology to share art? cure disease? explore space?

No.

pretty silly to assume that everyone is interested in "production capacity". some people feel there are meaningful things that don't require a car, tv, computer or microscope to experience...

Originally posted by mongreloctopus
pretty silly to assume that everyone is interested in "production capacity". *some people feel there are meaningful things that don't require a car, tv, computer or microscope to experience...

Ha. And they choose to discuss these things with computers on the Internet.