Anarchists?
- Thread starter No One Jones
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Post above yours makes a good point. Anarchy almost always results in chaos, people are not ruled and therefore do anything they desire, whether it be raping, killing or simply keeping to themselves, at the end of the day, nothing gets done, humanity doesn't progress and we're sent spiralling back to stone age tribalism.derelix said:
Anarchy is romanticism, it still and always will be. I like to think of it as an interval, a sort of break between two seperate societys, it doesn't last long because people crave power, if Anarchy exists then no one has power, so biggest gang or faction will take over by default, to fill the void of power. It's how we have our governments today.
In short Anarchy doesn't work, but in an ideal world it would.
In short Anarchy doesn't work, but in an ideal world it would.
Or by parents, cultural perspective, definitions in different languages (If you believe in to the idea of "Language defines reality as it is")derelix said:
It's not that they're against organisation, they just don't think that the current form of government works. Don't confuse the words 'anarchy' and 'Anarchism;' they're not exactly the same.Daystar Clarion said:
As caveman stupid as it sounds. It's the communities fault for not killing the crazy fools off. That's the reason I like the IDEA of Anarchy. You get to handle your problems directly. Only problem is if you get handled as well.TheNarrator said:
I think I've come across as hating anarchy, which I don't. In an ideal world anarchy would work, as would communism, but human as we are, there are people who are not satisfied with working with others on an equal level, it could succeed from a sociological standpoint, but from an evolutionary standpoint, people want to be better than other people. It could work, but only in a parralel universe where human sociology developed differently.derelix said:
That, to me, is the best part of anarchy. I geuss some would call it vigilantism (did I spell that right?). People work out their problems on their own and no one else gets involved. But like most of the people here have said anarchy has about as much chance of working as communismJacobistheshiz said:
but what if it wasn't organised? if we just didn't need laws anymore? is that any less anarchical in nature than a revolutionary approach?Daystar Clarion said:
personally, i think that anarchy, as in a state with no laws and no government, is preferable to anything we have now.
Not an anarchist myself but I'd like to throw in that it might work in the far future when humanity has evolved through cybernetics and we discover some way of instant long range communication, though that's highly theoretical and has no bearing on what we do today.
Until then, anarchists are free to go to Somalia where the notion of a country is absurd, where the government is practically nonexistant, and where they can observe the consequences of their beliefs when put into practice in a country today.
Until then, anarchists are free to go to Somalia where the notion of a country is absurd, where the government is practically nonexistant, and where they can observe the consequences of their beliefs when put into practice in a country today.
By the way, it's funny how killing for personal reasons (not that I would condone it) is seen as wrong and society will call you evil. But work for the government, you're given a gun, told where to point it and kill as many people as you want and society will call you a fucking hero. Morality changes when it suits the government.Dezmond said:
Evidently.Ampersand said:Ay! You know what he meant. We address people based on the veracity of their argument, not the quality of thier spelling.No One Jones said:Never heard of a higherarchy.Ampersand said:Who said there would be countries?Daystar Clarion said: