On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
How does the collective decide where the money goes? Does every decision need to be unanimous? If it's put to a vote, how do you enforce that the dissenting opinion follows along with the majority rule?
If you're just talking about utopia here, then fine, sounds like fun. But I think it's more worthwhile to try and work within reality.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
On July 03 2011 03:23 Greentellon wrote: Where does this "evil" of the government come from? From the people itself. Goverment isn't evil. People are. People of every stage of life, poor and rich alike. Dismantling government will not get you rid of these abusive people. They will only seek to get into the corporate leadership and now you have all-powerful evil corporations and no government to regulate them.
Are you sure you want that?
I would argue the opposite. People aren't evil, the system is. The big oil companies CEOs are often personally pretty sympathetic to the goals of let's say Green Peace. But in their function they just don't have any room for their personal opinion or vision to have any effect. The system demands from them to make profit.
Governments aren't very different, except you at least get to vote for something. Good example are former US presidents. Many of them have done more good without power then when they were the most powerful person on the planet. When they are freed from their office, they can and will passionately pursue goals like fighting AIDS, getting more vaccines for the poor children of the world, etc.
US presidents are just as much slaves of the system as anyone else. They decided they wanted to have that function. So they do what is expected from them by the system.
Everyone gets orders handed down to them and carries them out. This includes presidents and CEOs They are all held accountable for their actions by the system. But an accountability that staunchly contradicts the way how the people would hold them accountable if they were properly accountable as would be the case in a proper democracy.
Right now the US president is the most powerful person in the world. The US election is becoming more of a farce every four years. But I wonder that if the top 10 corporations of the wold all fuse and they have an all powerful CEO. Then that person is clearly the most powerful person on the world. I wonder how the people on the planet who rightly recognize democracy as the best system will respond when the most powerful person on the world has absolutely zero democratic accountability. How will people accept a world where somewhat democratic institutions like governments basically have no power anymore.
That's what anarcho-capitalists want. They want to remove as much power from the government and move it to private power. Then we have a guy we can vote on that basically serves the private industry and whose only function is to protect the borders. Every other segment of society will be owned and ruled by private power.
On July 01 2011 12:26 Jerubaal wrote: It's not anarchy, it's oligarchy. The telecommunications industry is thriving because they have money and guns. Just like anyone else there is thriving because they have money and guns.
Thanks man, defending anarchy's true meaning is a difficult task.
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
How does the collective decide where the money goes? Does every decision need to be unanimous? If it's put to a vote, how do you enforce that the dissenting opinion follows along with the majority rule?
If you're just talking about utopia here, then fine, sounds like fun. But I think it's more worthwhile to try and work within reality.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
How does the collective decide where the money goes? Does every decision need to be unanimous? If it's put to a vote, how do you enforce that the dissenting opinion follows along with the majority rule?
If you're just talking about utopia here, then fine, sounds like fun. But I think it's more worthwhile to try and work within reality.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
Mob rule never really works what you doing is creating sub communities that will end up fighting each-other for control which would create Anarchy but it would also be the end of modern society till one group normal a Religious one surpass the rest and enforce their morality on others like what happen in Iran
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
How does the collective decide where the money goes? Does every decision need to be unanimous? If it's put to a vote, how do you enforce that the dissenting opinion follows along with the majority rule?
If you're just talking about utopia here, then fine, sounds like fun. But I think it's more worthwhile to try and work within reality.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
Because people are very Territorial by nature.
Israel / Palestine they both exist within the same borders and they will never get along.
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?
No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief.
Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state.
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
How does the collective decide where the money goes? Does every decision need to be unanimous? If it's put to a vote, how do you enforce that the dissenting opinion follows along with the majority rule?
If you're just talking about utopia here, then fine, sounds like fun. But I think it's more worthwhile to try and work within reality.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.
I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now.
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?
No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief.
Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state.
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
How does the collective decide where the money goes? Does every decision need to be unanimous? If it's put to a vote, how do you enforce that the dissenting opinion follows along with the majority rule?
If you're just talking about utopia here, then fine, sounds like fun. But I think it's more worthwhile to try and work within reality.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.
I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now.
Im not talking about some Evolution of species man with a Darwinistic way of looking at it man, I´m talking about simply evolving as human beings and a people. For instance we dont rape women and pull them by the hair into caves anymore, we have evolved from that and it is my belief and hope that we will some day evolve from the nowadays way of looking at society and ourselves. Evolution is not a word that comes from a darwinistic perspective, it does mean other things aswell.
Also, for your own good and for the good of the discussion, dont put words in my mouth.
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?
No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief.
Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state.
On July 03 2011 08:40 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 08:28 HellRoxYa wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:31 Harrow wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
How does the collective decide where the money goes? Does every decision need to be unanimous? If it's put to a vote, how do you enforce that the dissenting opinion follows along with the majority rule?
If you're just talking about utopia here, then fine, sounds like fun. But I think it's more worthwhile to try and work within reality.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.
I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now.
For instance we dont rape women and pull them by the hair into caves anymore, we have evolved from that
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
How does the collective decide where the money goes? Does every decision need to be unanimous? If it's put to a vote, how do you enforce that the dissenting opinion follows along with the majority rule?
If you're just talking about utopia here, then fine, sounds like fun. But I think it's more worthwhile to try and work within reality.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
Do you, then, believe that there was some point in time when people were not assholes? Maybe just an example of a time and decently large region would be nice. I'm not sure if I can think of a place that didn't have people killing each other, for whatever reason.
You know, I totally agree with you that some sort of nice communal society without a real government could exist if people were really nice. I just think that such a thing isn't possible unless something in humans fundamentally changes..
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
How does the collective decide where the money goes? Does every decision need to be unanimous? If it's put to a vote, how do you enforce that the dissenting opinion follows along with the majority rule?
If you're just talking about utopia here, then fine, sounds like fun. But I think it's more worthwhile to try and work within reality.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
Do you, then, believe that there was some point in time when people were not assholes? Maybe just an example of a time and decently large region would be nice. I'm not sure if I can think of a place that didn't have people killing each other, for whatever reason.
You know, I totally agree with you that some sort of nice communal society without a real government could exist if people were really nice. I just think that such a thing isn't possible unless something in humans fundamentally changes..
First of all this is fairly irrelevant since this "niceness" is something we strive for. That does not necessarily mean that this "niceness" has ever happened before.
However, look at the Spanish Revolution. (1936) Some truly amazing and inspiring things happened there.
Also, there is (or rather was a few years ago) a small part of Copenhagen called Christiania that was a lot like this.
Both of these two examples have faults but that should not matter, all that matters is that it is something to strive for and the only way to ever get there is to do like Gandhi said. "Be the change that you want to see in this world."
(And with that I think I´m out since I believe I´m about to fall asleep! Peace out!)
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?
No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief.
Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state.
On July 03 2011 08:40 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 08:28 HellRoxYa wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:31 Harrow wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
How does the collective decide where the money goes? Does every decision need to be unanimous? If it's put to a vote, how do you enforce that the dissenting opinion follows along with the majority rule?
If you're just talking about utopia here, then fine, sounds like fun. But I think it's more worthwhile to try and work within reality.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.
I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now.
Im not talking about some Evolution of species man with a Darwinistic way of looking at it man, I´m talking about simply evolving as human beings and a people. For instance we dont rape women and pull them by the hair into caves anymore, we have evolved from that and it is my belief and hope that we will some day evolve from the nowadays way of looking at society and ourselves. Evolution is not a word that comes from a darwinistic perspective, it does mean other things aswell.
Also, for your own good and for the good of the discussion, dont put words in my mouth.
I've put no words in your mouth. What you just said is even stupider. Do you realize where this evolution has taken place? And why it's even been possible? It's not due to your anarchic fantasy society.
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?
Why do we have to keep old nations borders?
So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?
No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief.
Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state.
On July 03 2011 08:40 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 08:28 HellRoxYa wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:31 Harrow wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote: anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.
How does the collective decide where the money goes? Does every decision need to be unanimous? If it's put to a vote, how do you enforce that the dissenting opinion follows along with the majority rule?
If you're just talking about utopia here, then fine, sounds like fun. But I think it's more worthwhile to try and work within reality.
Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.
How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.
So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.
Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote: Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.
I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.
I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.
I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now.
Im not talking about some Evolution of species man with a Darwinistic way of looking at it man, I´m talking about simply evolving as human beings and a people. For instance we dont rape women and pull them by the hair into caves anymore, we have evolved from that and it is my belief and hope that we will some day evolve from the nowadays way of looking at society and ourselves. Evolution is not a word that comes from a darwinistic perspective, it does mean other things aswell.
Also, for your own good and for the good of the discussion, dont put words in my mouth.
I've put no words in your mouth. What you just said is even stupider. Do you realize where this evolution has taken place? And why it's even been possible? It's not due to your anarchic fantasy society.
On July 03 2011 03:23 Greentellon wrote: Where does this "evil" of the government come from? From the people itself. Goverment isn't evil. People are. People of every stage of life, poor and rich alike. Dismantling government will not get you rid of these abusive people. They will only seek to get into the corporate leadership and now you have all-powerful evil corporations and no government to regulate them.
Are you sure you want that?
I would argue the opposite. People aren't evil, the system is. The big oil companies CEOs are often personally pretty sympathetic to the goals of let's say Green Peace. But in their function they just don't have any room for their personal opinion or vision to have any effect. The system demands from them to make profit.
Governments aren't very different, except you at least get to vote for something. Good example are former US presidents. Many of them have done more good without power then when they were the most powerful person on the planet. When they are freed from their office, they can and will passionately pursue goals like fighting AIDS, getting more vaccines for the poor children of the world, etc.
US presidents are just as much slaves of the system as anyone else. They decided they wanted to have that function. So they do what is expected from them by the system.
Everyone gets orders handed down to them and carries them out. This includes presidents and CEOs They are all held accountable for their actions by the system. But an accountability that staunchly contradicts the way how the people would hold them accountable if they were properly accountable as would be the case in a proper democracy.
Right now the US president is the most powerful person in the world. The US election is becoming more of a farce every four years. But I wonder that if the top 10 corporations of the wold all fuse and they have an all powerful CEO. Then that person is clearly the most powerful person on the world. I wonder how the people on the planet who rightly recognize democracy as the best system will respond when the most powerful person on the world has absolutely zero democratic accountability. How will people accept a world where somewhat democratic institutions like governments basically have no power anymore.
That's what anarcho-capitalists want. They want to remove as much power from the government and move it to private power. Then we have a guy we can vote on that basically serves the private industry and whose only function is to protect the borders. Every other segment of society will be owned and ruled by private power.
You're basically just listing off the plot line of Metal Gear Solid 4 with governments losing powers to corporations, and also I think you over estimate the hatred between the "top corporations," they all rip each others throats out to increase profits. I don't think you need to worry about them colluding anytime soon.
EPT
