Anarchy: The Rational Solution To Government...

Seeing as I am prone to lengthy treatises, I have elected to keep this short and concise so that others might contribute. All the largely ignorant partisan bickering of the recent years has forced me to reflect upon the state of our democracy. That, and given recent revelations as to the existence of a great many cabals of evil men that undermine the few remaining good deeds of our elected representatives, I couldn’t help but think that our society is hurtling headfirst towards collapse. At first, I thought a return to our Constitutional origins would remedy the matter, and I supported the positions of Libertarians and other such fundamentalist groups. However, when I went back and studied the words of our founding fathers, wise and decisive as they were, I began to notice flaws inherent in their logic. From this, I began theorizing as to what would be the most perfect form of government. After much reflection, I was surprised when I concluded that any form of government, no matter how noble or well-intentioned, is intrinsically inadequate and ultimately futile. It would be as if a man had lost a limb and you were to offer him a band-aid. No matter how well-designed or adaptable that particular band-aid is, it’s only a temporary fix and a hasty remedy for a very serious problem. What is this problem? The inherent fallibility of man. Government exists for no other purpose than to prevent man from destroying himself. All the other functions: civic programs, military establishments, etc., are all within the sphere of individual control. These exist as nothing more than convenience. A community could easily pitch together and build a bridge, or defend itself from foreign intervention without a centralized authority.

I turned to anarchy because it represents the ultimate aspirations of mankind. Morality, generosity, community, self-reliance, wisdom, and responsibility. To dismiss this endeavor, as so many often do, as impractical or mere romanticism is engaging in a most vulgar disservice to the potential of the human race. Were not all the great accomplishments of our history once thought impractical or ridiculous by those with minds constrained by precedent? Did not all the great notions that arose from inspired minds once exist only within the uncertain realm of imagination? To put it simply, with all the thought and effort and passion that so many invest in coming up with better ideas for our world, why do we never stop and consider which one of these ideas is the best? And so far, I have yet to find a system more accommodating to the potential of mankind than anarchy. If someone could convince me otherwise, I would be more than willing to reconsider...

Please precede the post with an abstract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StickmanLoser

Please precede the post with an abstract.

---

Mushiki is a fatty :shame:

Ummm...ok. :chimp:

Ok, read the post.

A community could "pitch in" and build a bridge? That's crazy. To be honest mentioning things like that makes the post sound like you're actually satirizing people who believe in anarchy.

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_n...3-4341_IMG.JPG

I fell in with the "Black Bloq," a group of anarcho-fascists whose only goal is to commit violence and incite chaos. I marched with them for hours as they chanted, "Tonight, We're gonna, Fuck! Shit! Up!" and "Hey hey, Ho ho, this civilization's got to go!" and "Shoot Bush, not dope!" and "No Bush, No Kerry, Revolution's necessary."

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_n...3-4324_IMG.JPG

The Black Bloq folks hate San Francisco's touchy-feely leftists as much as they hate George Bush.

...

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_n...3-4342_IMG.JPG

Still frustrated, the Black Bloqers cried out, "Get the McDonald's!", but again the police were waiting for them. After seeing this row of cops protecting the building, the Black Bloqers backed off.

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_n...3-4360_IMG.JPG

Their blood lust was satiated when someone started burning George Bush in effigy.
...
After the effigy was burnt to a crisp, the evening came to a shattering conclusion as the protesters ignited an upside-down American flag and cheered in ecstasy while the flames leaped into the night sky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zer0hue

Seeing as I am prone to lengthy treatises, I have elected to keep this short and concise so that others might contribute. All the largely ignorant partisan bickering of the recent years has forced me to reflect upon the state of our democracy. That, and given recent revelations as to the existence of a great many cabals of evil men that undermine the few remaining good deeds of our elected representatives, I couldn’t help but think that our society is hurtling headfirst towards collapse. At first, I thought a return to our Constitutional origins would remedy the matter, and I supported the positions of Libertarians and other such fundamentalist groups. However, when I went back and studied the words of our founding fathers, wise and decisive as they were, I began to notice flaws inherent in their logic. From this, I began theorizing as to what would be the most perfect form of government. After much reflection, I was surprised when I concluded that any form of government, no matter how noble or well-intentioned, is intrinsically inadequate and ultimately futile. It would be as if a man had lost a limb and you were to offer him a band-aid. No matter how well-designed or adaptable that particular band-aid is, it’s only a temporary fix and a hasty remedy for a very serious problem. What is this problem? The inherent fallibility of man. Government exists for no other purpose than to prevent man from destroying himself. All the other functions: civic programs, military establishments, etc., are all within the sphere of individual control. These exist as nothing more than convenience. A community could easily pitch together and build a bridge, or defend itself from foreign intervention without a centralized authority.

I turned to anarchy because it represents the ultimate aspirations of mankind. Morality, generosity, community, self-reliance, wisdom, and responsibility. To dismiss this endeavor, as so many often do, as impractical or mere romanticism is engaging in a most vulgar disservice to the potential of the human race. Were not all the great accomplishments of our history once thought impractical or ridiculous by those with minds constrained by precedent? Did not all the great notions that arose from inspired minds once exist only within the uncertain realm of imagination? To put it simply, with all the thought and effort and passion that so many invest in coming up with better ideas for our world, why do we never stop and consider which one of these ideas is the best? And so far, I have yet to find a system more accommodating to the potential of mankind than anarchy. If someone could convince me otherwise, I would be more than willing to reconsider...

---

First of all this country is not a democracy... it's a Constitutional Republic.

Anarchy can not work, especially considering this (or any other country's) nation's bloated population and the variety of people within. History has demonstrated that large groups of aren't able to individually govern themselves effectively. Why not? Because very few men share your notion of the "Potential" of Mankind. So many people are born broken, so many people are born evil. Believe it or not Touchy Feely Timmy we're not all out to better ourselves or others.

Yours are the ramblings of the typical naive college type. “Why can’t we all just get along man?” Instead of forming impractical utopian philosophies of how mankind should function apply reality instead. Anarchy couldn't work, look at what happened in New Orleans if you need a recent example of what people do in the absence of government.

Most people are dicks, they don't care about their potential let alone the potential of mankind. You are silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zer0hue

Seeing as I am prone to lengthy treatises, I have elected to keep this short and concise so that others might contribute. All the largely ignorant partisan bickering of the recent years has forced me to reflect upon the state of our democracy. That, and given recent revelations as to the existence of a great many cabals of evil men that undermine the few remaining good deeds of our elected representatives, I couldn’t help but think that our society is hurtling headfirst towards collapse. At first, I thought a return to our Constitutional origins would remedy the matter, and I supported the positions of Libertarians and other such fundamentalist groups. However, when I went back and studied the words of our founding fathers, wise and decisive as they were, I began to notice flaws inherent in their logic. From this, I began theorizing as to what would be the most perfect form of government. After much reflection, I was surprised when I concluded that any form of government, no matter how noble or well-intentioned, is intrinsically inadequate and ultimately futile. It would be as if a man had lost a limb and you were to offer him a band-aid. No matter how well-designed or adaptable that particular band-aid is, it’s only a temporary fix and a hasty remedy for a very serious problem. What is this problem? The inherent fallibility of man. Government exists for no other purpose than to prevent man from destroying himself. All the other functions: civic programs, military establishments, etc., are all within the sphere of individual control. These exist as nothing more than convenience. A community could easily pitch together and build a bridge, or defend itself from foreign intervention without a centralized authority.

I turned to anarchy because it represents the ultimate aspirations of mankind. Morality, generosity, community, self-reliance, wisdom, and responsibility. To dismiss this endeavor, as so many often do, as impractical or mere romanticism is engaging in a most vulgar disservice to the potential of the human race. Were not all the great accomplishments of our history once thought impractical or ridiculous by those with minds constrained by precedent? Did not all the great notions that arose from inspired minds once exist only within the uncertain realm of imagination? To put it simply, with all the thought and effort and passion that so many invest in coming up with better ideas for our world, why do we never stop and consider which one of these ideas is the best? And so far, I have yet to find a system more accommodating to the potential of mankind than anarchy. If someone could convince me otherwise, I would be more than willing to reconsider...

---

Anarchy would cause us to destroy ourselves, which is the very reason why government exists. Your logic is flawed. There needs to be laws to protect the inncoent people from others. Yes, our governement has gotten too big and out of control in a lot of ways, but anarchy is not the answer.

This isn't a new idea either, and there are plenty of places with no government right now. Most of these places are controlled by terrorists.

No thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

First of all this country is not a democracy... it's a Constitutional Republic.

Anarchy can not work, especially considering this (or any other country's) nation's bloated population and the variety of people within. History has demonstrated that large groups of aren't able to individually govern themselves effectively. Why not? Because very few men share your notion of the "Potential" of Mankind. So many people are born broken, so many people are born evil. Believe it or not Touchy Feely Timmy we're not all out to better ourselves or others.

Yours are the ramblings of the typical naive college type. “Why can’t we all just get along man?” Instead of forming impractical utopian philosophies of how mankind should function apply reality instead. Anarchy couldn't work, look at what happened in New Orleans if you need a recent example of what people do in the absence of government.

Most people are dicks, they don't care about their potential let alone the potential of mankind. You are silly.

---

You are right.
Owned. :chimp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Yours are the ramblings are the typical naive college type. “Why can’t we all just get along man?” Instead of forming impractical utopian philosophies of how mankind should function apply reality instead. Anarchy couldn't work, look at what happened in New Orleans if you need a recent example of what people do in the absence of government.

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3900777.stm

Quote:

---

"I was sleeping when the attack on Disa [village] started. I was taken away by the attackers, they were all in uniforms. They took dozens of other girls and made us walk for three hours. During the day we were beaten and they were telling us: "You, the black women, we will exterminate you, you have no god." At night we were raped several times. The Arabs guarded us with arms and we were not given food for three days."
Female refugee from Disa

"When we tried to escape they shot more children. They raped women; I saw many cases of Janjaweed raping women and girls. They are happy when they rape. They sing when they rape and they tell that we are just slaves and that they can do with us how they wish."
A, a 37-year-old from Mukjar

"There was also another rape on a young single girl, aged 17. M was raped by six men in front of her house in front of her mother. M's brother, S, was then tied up and thrown into fire."
H, a 35-year-old man from Mukjar.

"In July 2003, the Arabs raped M, 14, on the market square and threatened to shoot on the witnesses if they tried to intervene. They also raped other girls in the bush."
S, a 28-year-old from Habila region.

"The six men raped my daughter, who is 25 years old, in front of me, my wife and the young children."
H, a man from Magarsa.

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3791713.stm

Quote:

---

Behind the closed door of a classroom, in the school compound where she has been living for the last two months, 35 year-old rape-victim Khadija, spoke of her ordeal.

"The Janjaweed arrived one evening in February in our village near Kaileck, they had guns," she says in a quiet voice.

"They followed us when we tried to escape. The group of people I was with was forced back to Kaileck. They had surrounded the whole town."

"They separated men and women. Then the Janjaweed selected the prettiest women."

"Four men raped me for 10 days."

"Every day, women were picked up, taken to the bush where they were raped and brought back to Kaileck. The next day it would start again."

...

In the same classroom, a much younger woman listens.

Fifteen-year-old Aziza says she was also raped by the Janjaweed back in February.

"When Kaileck was attacked, I fled towards the mountains, but five horsemen caught me and took me far away in a field," she says.

"All five of them raped me twice. They kept me for 10 days. They whipped me."

"I could not say anything because they were armed. All I could do was to cry."

"They tied up my arms and my legs and would only release me when they raped me. They called me Abeid (slave in Arabic)."

"Eventually they abandoned me. Someone told my mother where I was and she came to take me back. I could not walk by myself."

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4099601.stm

Quote:

---

Darfur war breeds 'dirty babies'
By Ishbel Matheson
BBC News, Darfur

Fatma gently unwraps the bright, pink folds of her shawl, to reveal her baby girl.

The sickly, three-month-old child, named Hawa, is the result of terrible atrocity.

When Arab militia, known as Janjaweed, came to Fatma's home in January, they threatened to kill her father.

Fatma intervened but the gunmen turned on her.

"They said to me: 'You are a prostitute'," she says.

"They pinned me down, one on my hands and one on my legs. The others took turns."

Fatma was held for four hours and raped repeatedly.

They left her alive, but injured so badly, that she could not walk.

When her family eventually found her, they had to carry her home.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ely13

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_n...3-4341_IMG.JPG

I fell in with the "Black Bloq," a group of anarcho-fascists whose only goal is to commit violence and incite chaos. I marched with them for hours as they chanted, "Tonight, We're gonna, Fuck! Shit! Up!" and "Hey hey, Ho ho, this civilization's got to go!" and "Shoot Bush, not dope!" and "No Bush, No Kerry, Revolution's necessary."

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_n...3-4324_IMG.JPG

The Black Bloq folks hate San Francisco's touchy-feely leftists as much as they hate George Bush.

...

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_n...3-4342_IMG.JPG

Still frustrated, the Black Bloqers cried out, "Get the McDonald's!", but again the police were waiting for them. After seeing this row of cops protecting the building, the Black Bloqers backed off.

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_n...3-4360_IMG.JPG

Their blood lust was satiated when someone started burning George Bush in effigy.
...
After the effigy was burnt to a crisp, the evening came to a shattering conclusion as the protesters ignited an upside-down American flag and cheered in ecstasy while the flames leaped into the night sky.

---

I'd love to see how many of those fuckers could survive a year of their anarchy. Traitors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ely13

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3900777.stm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3791713.stm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4099601.stm

---

:mr_t:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ki_atsushi

I'd love to see how many of those fuckers could survive a year of their anarchy. Traitors.

---

zer0hue needs to read the first half of Hobbes' Leviathan and start reading what's really happening in the world. American media, as a whole, is astonishingly sanitized.

Anarchy is like communism. It looks great on paper, but fails miserably in reality.

Nor on the best of days!
I sense a flame to engulf this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

First of all this country is not a democracy... it's a Constitutional Republic.

---

Wrong. Our government started out as a republic and has since time evolved into a “modern democracy.” Read Robert A. Dahl and refute him if you don’t agree with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Anarchy can not work, especially considering this (or any other country's) nation's bloated population and the variety of people within. History has demonstrated that large groups of aren't able to individually govern themselves effectively.

---

So, your argument that anarchy can’t work is because it has never worked before. If you had lived at the turn of the 20th century you could have made a very effective case for why man can’t fly using that same logic. Modern American pragmatism is nothing more than a sunny way of dressing up defeatism. Now who’s being naive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Most people are dicks, they don't care about their potential let alone the potential of mankind.

---

I agree with your statement that most people are flawed, the question is whether we, as a society of people who strives to be just and moral, should expect more of them. If not, then I suppose it’s fine if we all bathe in soothing broth of relativism. Just don’t complain to me if you’re one of the unlucky who falls victim to a society predicated upon low expectations.

In anarchy, power goes to those with the most guns.

qube should take zer0 out of his Ivory Tower for a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnaflux

In anarchy, power goes to those with the most guns.

---

And in turn, a leader will come to power and it will just become a dictatorship over time. I'd rather have democracy any day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ki_atsushi

And in turn, a leader will come to power and it will just become a dictatorship over time. I'd rather have democracy any day.

---

Naturally, without any leadership a power vacuum exists. Throughout history a tyrant has always taken the helm to control the people.

Say what you will about logic, I can't refute that. What I can refute is human nature.

As a side note, have you taken a single Economics class before? How the fuck is a country with hundreds of millions of people going to support itself of the rule of law breaks down entirely? Do you know one of the greatest factors of economic development was land property rights? Do you have any idea how we reached our current economic equilibrium? Shelves in Safeway don't magically restock themselves overnight. Frozen patties and french fries don't magically appear in McDonalds' freezers every morning. Even in the Wild West, there are hundreds of empirical examples of what happened when a town didn't have a strong sheriff.

Do you know what the lowest state of economic currency/trade is? Bartering. Given how efficient America's marketplace is, and given how many people still go hungry and whatnot, do you have any conception of how far things will regress if we exponentially increase market inefficiencies?

Christ. This is a thread that needs some of our South America members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnaflux

In anarchy, power goes to those with the most guns.

---

Maybe it’s in the way that I’ve come about this, but I’m fascinated that the theory of anarchy is inexorably linked with violent, almost exclusively leftist groups and violence. It seems to me that these associations are quite contrary to the notion itself which supposes no explicit means as to how the absence of government should come about. I believe this is a case of bad pop-cultural saturation (As much as I enjoy the Sex Pistols from time to time) and intellectual brainwashing. If all you think of when you hear the word anarchy is angsty punks and violent mayhem, as in Ely13's case, it certainly relieves you of the burden of having to consider that notion rationally...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zer0hue

Wrong. Our government started out as a republic and has since time evolved into a “modern democracy.” Read Robert A. Dahl and refute him if you don’t agree with me.

---

Our country is by definition a Constitutional Republic.

We are bound by certain principles outlined in the Constitution. That's the difference between a country with solid pre-existing principles and a country whose fundamental privileges and rights are easily changed and are determined by the public opinion.

We are a representative national republic – we’re controlled by laws. You are dead wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zer0hue

So, your argument that anarchy can’t work is because it has never worked before. If you had lived at the turn of the 20th century you could have made a very effective case for why man can’t fly using that same logic. Modern American pragmatism is nothing more than a sunny way of dressing up defeatism. Now who’s being naive?.

---

Do airplanes rape people? Do airplanes murder people? Here is the difference - airplanes are inanimate objects governed by Science. Their function can be predicted, they can be controlled. This is not the case for human beings... it's the polar opposite. I'm not saying it won't work because it's never been done before (which isn't true by the way) I'm saying it won't work because it can't work, it's impractical. It's impossible to account for the intent of every person within one's society. Some people are evil.

Listen, you argument is silly. Certain people NEED to be controlled because they present an immediate danger to their society. Without repercussions guaranteed by government these people are left to their own devices.


What the fuck have they been teaching you in whatever college you go to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zer0hue

I agree with your statement that most people are flawed, the question is whether we, as a society of people who strives to be just and moral, should expect more of them. If not, then I suppose it’s fine if we all bathe in soothing broth of relativism. Just don’t complain to me if you’re one of the unlucky who falls victim to a society predicated upon low expectations.

---

What the Hell are you talking about? Of course we should expect more of them. Be that as it may what will "Expecting" more of them realistically accomplish? Do you think your expectations will change them? Give me a break. Certain people are evil, no amount of utopian philosophizing or societal expectations will change them... without the power and influence of a governing body these people would be left to tear us apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zer0hue

Maybe it’s in the way that I’ve come about this, but I’m fascinated that the theory of anarchy is inexorably linked with ... violence.

...

If all you think of when you hear the word anarchy is angsty punks and violent mayhem, as in Ely13's case, it certainly relieves you of the burden of having to consider that notion rationally...

---

Yup. It's rational to disregard every single case of historical precedent and instead put billions of peoples' lives in jeopardy on the basis of an intellectual experiment.

Anarchy symbols look cool on jackets.

This thread sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

What the fuck have they been teaching you in whatever college you go to?

---

Just as I'm about to think that Scanline is one of the biggest mongs on these boards, someone manages to up the ante.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zer0hue

Maybe it’s in the way that I’ve come about this, but I’m fascinated that the theory of anarchy is inexorably linked with violent, almost exclusively leftist groups and violence. It seems to me that these associations are quite contrary to the notion itself which supposes no explicit means as to how the absence of government should come about. I believe this is a case of bad pop-cultural saturation (As much as I enjoy the Sex Pistols from time to time) and intellectual brainwashing. If all you think of when you hear the word anarchy is angsty punks and violent mayhem, as in Ely13's case, it certainly relieves you of the burden of having to consider that notion rationally...

---

Because in human organizations a heirarchy exists?

With no government, weapons are the tools used to gain power and create a heirarchy?

Even in remote villages with no formal government a heirarchy exists. They have a system of government which is not anarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ely13

As a side note, have you taken a single Economics class before? How the fuck is a country with hundreds of millions of people going to support itself of the rule of law breaks down entirely? Do you know one of the greatest factors of economic development was land property rights? Do you have any idea how we reached our current economic equilibrium? Shelves in Safeway don't magically restock themselves overnight. Frozen patties and french fries don't magically appear in McDonalds' freezers every morning. Even in the Wild West, there are hundreds of empirical examples of what happened when a town didn't have a strong sheriff.

Do you know what the lowest state of economic currency/trade is? Bartering. Given how efficient America's marketplace is, and given how many people still go hungry and whatnot, do you have any conception of how far things will regress if we exponentially increase market inefficiencies?

---

So, essentially, your entire argument breaks down to: we should support democracy because it facilitates economic prosperity. Interestingly enough I never mentioned economics, and your own example shows that economics doesn’t need government to function, as in the case of bartering. If I have gold and you have a chicken and I want to eat I’ll trade my gold for the chicken. That’s been working pretty well for thousands of years, long before the existence of government oversight. Also interesting, the Dahl book I was reading today (“On Democracy”) explicitly states that capitalism, while a stabilizing force early in a democracy, is paradoxically responsible for its demise. He suggests that a new form of economics is needed, though neither he nor anyone else (to the best of my research) has developed this idea yet. Now, under anarchy, capitalism has no infrastructure to erode and thus functions is a less malignant manner. There is the unequal distribution of resources, but that’s a simple fact of life. Some live, some die, some suffer, some prosper. Nothing can prevent that. If you can, I’d love to hear how...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zer0hue

So, essentially, your entire argument breaks down to: we should support democracy because it facilitates economic prosperity. Interestingly enough I never mentioned economics, and your own example shows that economics doesn’t need government to function, as in the case of bartering. If I have gold and you have a chicken and I want to eat I’ll trade my gold for the chicken. That’s been working pretty well for thousands of years, long before the existence of government oversight. Also interesting, the Dahl book I was reading today (“On Democracy”) explicitly states that capitalism, while a stabilizing force early in a democracy, is paradoxically responsible for its demise. He suggests that a new form of economics is needed, though neither he nor anyone else (to the best of my research) has developed this idea yet. Now, under anarchy, capitalism has no infrastructure to erode and thus functions is a less malignant manner. There is the unequal distribution of resources, but that’s a simple fact of life. Some live, some die, some suffer, some prosper. Nothing can prevent that. If you can, I’d love to hear how...

---

Oh my god... now I know how D-Lite felt in that intelligent design thread.

Stinky and Magnaflux can take over this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ely13

Oh my god... now I know how D-Lite felt in that intelligent design thread.

Stinky and Magnaflux can take over this thread.

---

I don't post that much in stupid threads do I? :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnaflux

I don't post that much in stupid threads do I? :(

---

You own the deed to the toolhouse! :spock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ely13

You own the deed to the toolhouse! :spock:

---

:kekeke:


PS. It's the toolshed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zer0hue

If I have gold and you have a chicken and I want to eat I’ll trade my gold for the chicken. That’s been working pretty well for thousands of years, long before the existence of government oversight.

---

Well, since there's no laws, I'd just kill you for your chickens and get away with it scott free.

This is why anarchy cannot work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Listen, you argument is silly. Certain people NEED to be controlled because they present an immediate danger to their society. Without repercussions guaranteed by government these people are left to their own devices. Of course we should expect more of them. Be that as it may what will "Expecting" more of them realistically accomplish? Do you think your expectations will change them? Give me a break. Certain people are evil, no amount of utopian philosophizing or societal expectations will change them... without the power and influence of a governing body these people would be left to tear us apart.

---

Well, this just seems to be where you and I differ. You are a pragmatist, which is a rational defeatist, and I am not. I never once called your intelligence or the validity of your views in question, I only asked if someone could provide a better, not more practical, alternative to anarchy, which I don’t believe anyone has. I shouldn’t be surprised by the rancor in which some people have tried to refute my opinions, but I don’t really mind as long as it contributes to the discussion. Oh, and Slinky, answer me this: what if I come to power and decided that you need to be controlled?

This is easily the gayest thread in the last 10 mins.
Anarchy = a bunch of fags who think they know how to fix everything.
My advice to you, get the fuck away from whoever told you this was a good idea, get a job and then shut the fuck up.

http://www.vegalleries.com/commopc/puppy.jpg
http://www.vegalleries.com/commopc/puppy.jpg
http://www.vegalleries.com/commopc/puppy.jpg
http://www.vegalleries.com/commopc/puppy.jpg
http://www.vegalleries.com/commopc/puppy.jpg
http://www.vegalleries.com/commopc/puppy.jpg
http://www.vegalleries.com/commopc/puppy.jpg
http://www.vegalleries.com/commopc/puppy.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ki_atsushi

Well, since there's no laws, I'd just kill you for your chickens and get away with it scott free.

This is why anarchy cannot work.

---

That’s supposing a lot of things, namely that I allow you to kill me, that you wouldn’t be punished for you act, etc. You could murder and rob me under the current form of government as well. I guess that proves our that democracies (constitutional or not) are just as fallible. I believe you’re alluding to the notion that doing such an act would be easier under anarchy because of the lack of oversight. I won’t disagree with you there. But, if you remember, one of the philosophies that is essential for anarchy to function is morality. No one should have to force upon you the notion that murder is wrong, you should already know that yourself...

This thread just hit critical stupidity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zer0hue

Well, this just seems to be where you and I differ. You are a pragmatist, which is a rational defeatist, and I am not. I never once called your intelligence or the validity of your views in question, I only asked if someone could provide a better, not more practical, alternative to anarchy, which I don’t believe anyone has. I shouldn’t be surprised by the rancor in which some people have tried to refute my opinions, but I don’t really mind as long as it contributes to the discussion. Oh, and Slinky, answer me this: what if I come to power and decided that you need to be controlled?

---

I call them as I see them, a ball is a ball and a strike is a strike.

A person who honestly believes anarchy would be an effective alternative to our government has a whole lot more learning to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zer0hue

Oh, and Slinky, answer me this: what if I come to power and decided that you need to be controlled?

---

What does a dictatorship have to do with this? Our form of government is more effective than anarchy would be, you claimed otherwise. That was the point of your original post.

You are a political dunce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zer0hue

But, if you remember, one of the philosophies that is essential for anarchy to function is morality. No one should have to force upon you the notion that murder is wrong, you should already know that yourself...

---

You are the Prince of naivety. you know nothing of your "fellow" man.

Time for a toolshed update.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnaflux

Time for a toolshed update.

---

That time came when this thread was created.

more awesome drawings to calm the conservative rage!

http://www.vegalleries.com/commopc/02she2.jpg
http://otakuworld.com/kiss/dolls/images/motu_pop.gif
http://users.skynet.be/fa430383/She-ra-pop.jpg
http://www.serienoldies.de/images2/shera_shera.jpg

I can and will masturbate to those.

I wish I could see her nips but I'll make do.

Something about She-Ra always lowered my blood pressure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

I can and will masturbate to those.

I wish I could see her nips but I'll make do.

---

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/...pimp/saved.jpg

He-Man hentai....

The perfect thing to redeem this thread. :chimp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnaflux

Something about She-Ra always lowered my blood pressure.

---

http://home.earthlink.net/~normawp/s.../she-ra13a.jpg

edit - god bless the internet.

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/125/1...he-ra%2004.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ely13

qube should take zer0 out of his Ivory Tower for a day.

---

My Ivory Tower :spock:

I like zer0hue because he's a zombie fan, what's wrong with that?

It appears this thread has already gone askew, but I'll post anyway...

The Constitutional Republic we live in (or any other form of government in which those being governed have a say-so in government) is superior by far to anarchy.

Without government infrastructure and legislation, there are no rules governing groups of people. Without rules, many people are not educated enough to make informed decisions. This includes decisions about both immediate and long term needs. Humans naturally have a tendency toward the path of least resistance, so without enough forward thinking on the consequences of their actions individuals ted to choose methods of immediate gratification over those, which will produce the highest beneficial yield. Thus, stronger (but not necessarily informed) individuals make decisions about meeting their own needs, and chaos ensues.

Perhaps you should read more on the topic of the Social Contract. Gain a better understanding of it before you put any one form of government (or lack there of) on a pedestal.