Anarchy Is Not Chaos

[Chorkles]

Whenever I bring up anarchy (except in my own household), everyone immediately seems to think that the word implies chaos where with everyone looting and killing with no one to stop it. That definition is what those who have power want the populace to believe so that they can keep their power. You have to ask yourself, if the government wasn't around, would you go out and kill someone or steal something? I know I wouldn't. Anarchy is just a lack of government, where, instead of depending on others, you depend on yourself and those in the immediate vicinity and where you live in a self-sustaining community.

[Chorkles]

At 5/17/07 11:35 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 5/17/07 11:29 PM, Chorkles wrote: You have to ask yourself, if the government wasn't around, would you go out and kill someone or steal something?

There certainly wouldn't be anyone to stop those who do.

I don't agree. You don't need a police man to stop a thief or a murderer, do you?

[Tancrisism]

At 5/17/07 11:35 PM, Tal-con wrote: I agree, anarchy is not chaos, I'm sure there are small village communities somewhere that get along without a governing force just fine, but more often than not, anarchy leads to chaos.

I agree too, with this statement.

World-wide, or widespread anarchy in general would not work for the same exact reason that communism doesn't work. Human ambition is just too great a factor. What would stop someone from taking power in an anarchist society?

Small-time anarchy could work, yes. Same with communism. Widespread is ridiculously optimistic thinking, though.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 5/18/07 12:09 AM, Chorkles wrote:

At 5/17/07 11:35 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 5/17/07 11:29 PM, Chorkles wrote:

I don't agree. You don't need a police man to stop a thief or a murderer, do you?

Actually you do.

Because the only thing that would stop me from killing and stealing is my religion.

Beyond that, I would be in the pillaging parties.

[SolInvictus]

tee-hee!

[Empanado]

At 5/18/07 12:45 AM, SolInvictus wrote: tee-hee!

Man, that TOTALLY does NOT apply here. He's fourteen, not fifteen.

Therefore, he is right about everything. Anarchy can clearly work perfectly in a large collective, since no one will attempt to do anything to unstabilize the society, and if somebody did, whatever means of control employed would not eventually set up a new form of govewrnmental order. I'm also very glad that he obviously stands in favor of anarchy because of a strong moral, philosophical and political conviction strengthened by comprehensive reading of treaties, manifestos, speeches and essays from major theorists of anarchism, and definitely NOT because of watching "V for Vendetta" one too many times.

[SolInvictus]

At 5/18/07 01:29 AM, Empanado wrote:

At 5/18/07 12:45 AM, SolInvictus wrote: tee-hee!

Man, that TOTALLY does NOT apply here. He's fourteen, not fifteen.

damn; how could i have been so blind?

[troubles1]

At 5/18/07 12:09 AM, Chorkles wrote:

At 5/17/07 11:35 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 5/17/07 11:29 PM, Chorkles wrote: You have to ask yourself, if the government wasn't around, would you go out and kill someone or steal something?

There certainly wouldn't be anyone to stop those who do.

I don't agree. You don't need a police man to stop a thief or a murderer, do you?

Yes you do, we need some type of structure, also we need a military, and other types of positions to ensure that there is not total chaos, in theory Anarchy would be nice, but in reality, it will never work, the world is to screwed up, and people are to screwed up to not have some type of control system in place.

[devilchrono]

I would just like to point out that there really never has been any documented total world anarchy there for none of us can make a truly valid point. On the other hand look at the way that animals live. They don't have governments or policemen. Sure other animals die but that's just the way it is.

[emmytee]

Yeah, I totally would.

[K-RadPie]

What's the point of even trying to have anarchy anyway? It wouldn't be long before some fascist dictator topples the non-existent military and takes over.

[shini-gami]

dude in my town alone there would be thousands of murders in the first hours of anarchy, i myself would step on my bike and make a quik visit to my old art teacher

[Bajjer]

Yes, I would prefer an anarchy also. Ofcourse, at this time, it would be horrible because of the immense amount of corruption. However, that will hopefully change as humanity evolves. We have, afterall, grown out of many other systems that seemed perfect.

If there are aliens, these are the type of societies I see.

[NeoNecronox]

If you dismiss the penalties for theft, violence and similar crimes, expecting the honour-system to be enough to keep the society from degrading to a state of chaos you're gradually transforming the nation into a essentially spineless hell-hole. Anarchy can never work, if you believe otherwise you're most likely a 13 year old who thinks guns are "awesome", a braindead hippy or an idiot.

[Bajjer]

At 5/18/07 10:22 AM, NeoNecronox wrote: you're gradually transforming the nation into a essentially spineless hell-hole.

And you're gradually turning this into a corrupted nation. By letting it spiral out of control? No, by letting it spiral in-control.

We've escaped the chaos this world may soon take long enough. Now, explain to me a way to escape it now.

[Chorkles]

At 5/18/07 10:22 AM, NeoNecronox wrote: If you dismiss the penalties for theft, violence and similar crimes, expecting the honour-system to be enough to keep the society from degrading to a state of chaos you're gradually transforming the nation into a essentially spineless hell-hole. Anarchy can never work, if you believe otherwise you're most likely a 13 year old who thinks guns are "awesome", a braindead hippy or an idiot.

1. I adhore gones.
2. Our nation and others are spineless hell-holes.
3. Its possible to dispence justice and not be a police man. Would you let a theft or murder go unnoticed just because the cops aren't around?
4. You're most likely a mindless patriotic nationalist who thinks his government is "just lovely"

[HighlyIllogical]

At 5/18/07 12:00 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Any one here who supports anarchy needs to:
1. Grow up.
2. Read up on human nature.
3. Read a history book.

More than anything, it's human nature, though...historical examples abound.

Communism fails because people want, naturally, to be better and advance. It's a stagnant system. Anarchy doesn't force people to work together for mutual benefit--capitalism combined with democracy does.

[Chorkles]

I guess when I said anarchy, I meant the complete bringing-down of civilization. Of course, its probably a little to late for that...

[Chorkles]

At 5/18/07 05:43 PM, Tal-con wrote: With anarchy there would be no hospitals, your local doctor would be your best bet and don't think that'll ever work in a mass scale.

It would mean no matters of security or other social issues could be addressed. Country wants to attack you? Pity you don't have a standing military. You need money to rebuild roads? No taxes, better start a charity fund.

It goes on and on like that.

There wouldn't be another nation. I'm not talking on a national scale, I'm talking on a global scale.

[Chorkles]

and as for the issue of hospitals, why wouldn't there be hospitals? Why wouldn't someone who was trained as a doctor not work to heal others just because the government isn't around. what you believe is that anarchy will bring down the whole infostructure. This is wrong. Its perfectly possible to have an infrostructure without a hierarchy.

[Chorkles]

At 5/18/07 06:14 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 5/18/07 06:09 PM, Chorkles wrote: and as for the issue of hospitals, why wouldn't there be hospitals?

Who's going to organize all of the doctors in one place? Who's going to train

This is wrong. Its perfectly possible to have an infrostructure without a hierarchy.

How.

Here, maybe a dictionary translation will help.

Hierarchy: A body of officials disposed organically in ranks and
orders each subordinate to the one above it; a body of
ecclesiastical rulers.
Infrastructure: The basic structure or features of a system or organization.

In neither of these does one mention the other. If you're gonna bring up the fact that a government is one of the "basic structure or features" then all I have to say to you is bullshit.

[ShardStorm]

Any of you who find the Anarchy-Chaos thing interesting might enjoy reading V for Vendetta.

[TheSovereign]

At 5/17/07 11:29 PM, Chorkles wrote: You have to ask yourself, if the government wasn't around, would you go out and kill someone or steal something?

I wouldn't but others would. Anarachy would just set us back 2000 years.

[Nylo]

At 5/17/07 11:29 PM, Chorkles wrote: Anarchy is just a lack of government, where, instead of depending on others, you depend on yourself and those in the immediate vicinity and where you live in a self-sustaining community.

You have that backwards. If you're talking about anarchy in politics, it's when a people don't recognize a ruling government as legitimate or fit to rule them; not that there isn't any government presiding over them. Whether or not anarchy is a chaos is a matter of opinion; then again so was the law of gravity. I tend to disagree that anarchy isn't chaos. Whenever a people don't recognize a government's ruling authority, there is generally mass violence and chaos: Palestine V. Isreal and the French Revoltion.

In the modern age, if a country is in a state of anarchy they're depending on themselvse to avoid getting shot or looted. Anarchy=chaos.

[scorchin-hot]

If there was no government I wouldn't go around killing and stealing but we wouldn't punish people who did so they would keep killing and stealing. YOu need to learn about human nature ie. that when people have rules taken away they will exploit there freedom. YOu should have to earn your freedom by being a law abiding citizen it isn't just handed to you.

[Chorkles]

At 5/18/07 08:35 PM, TheSovereign wrote:

At 5/17/07 11:29 PM, Chorkles wrote: You have to ask yourself, if the government wasn't around, would you go out and kill someone or steal something?

I wouldn't but others would. Anarachy would just set us back 2000 years.

I don't think of that as a bad thing. honestly, we are raping the world with our so called "progress". We just keep on producing more waste and more pollution. We keep on clear cutting, strip mining, killing off entire species, bombing people and making trade embargoes to starve nations. To be set back 2000 years would be good.

[Chorkles]

At 5/18/07 09:04 PM, scorchin-hot wrote: If there was no government I wouldn't go around killing and stealing but we wouldn't punish people who did so they would keep killing and stealing. YOu need to learn about human nature ie. that when people have rules taken away they will exploit there freedom. YOu should have to earn your freedom by being a law abiding citizen it isn't just handed to you.

why wouldn't we stop those who steal or kill? I think we all need to learn about human nature as well as the fact every human's nature is different.

[scorchin-hot]

Because there would be no fucking police force, the question is how could we stop them. Would we form mobs and linch wrongdoers?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 5/18/07 09:12 PM, Chorkles wrote:

At 5/18/07 09:04 PM, scorchin-hot wrote:

why wouldn't we stop those who steal or kill? I think we all need to learn about human nature as well as the fact every human's nature is different.

Not it isn't.

You arguing differently shows your lack of knowledge on it.

History has shown quite clearly that man is a viscous, territorial, selfish beast.

If men kill each other with government, it can definately get worse without it.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 5/18/07 09:24 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

At 5/18/07 09:15 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Yes, but it is also in our nature to have a leader which would be a form of government.
You know the strongest among us is the one that tells us what to do, blah, blah, blah.

Thats where the idea of the Social Contract comes into the equation.

The though that we give up some of our freedom to form some semblance of a government is the basis.

And if you look at the evolution of government, tribal socities were the begining.