Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/9/08 08:56 PM, aninjaman wrote: Well there is your problem in your collective anarchy. I believe with no government people will do whatever they want. Take for example countries in Africa that have no govenrnment control and people fight over money and guns.

Maybe because in Africa, the government is so corrupt that the people can't afford the basic necessities in life.

I find being as optimistic as you about human nature hard to be.

I find doing basic research before entering a debate to be a practical course of action.

Why is the government morally superior to the people? Governments are made up of individuals with just as much capacity for evil as the rest of us, if we indeed are inherently evil. When elected to an office, an individual does not suddenly become a paragon of morality. Where does the bribery of law enforcement and government officials fall into your idea of a government that keeps us from committing crimes?

At 12/9/08 09:05 PM, D3NTATUS wrote: Maybe because in Africa, the government is so corrupt that the people can't afford the basic necessities in life.

But why cant the people just leave the government and form a collective anarchy like you say?
Because with no control people fight for their own intrest and survival.

I find doing basic research before entering a debate to be a practical course of action.

Why is the government morally superior to the people? Governments are made up of individuals with just as much capacity for evil as the rest of us, if we indeed are inherently evil. When elected to an office, an individual does not suddenly become a paragon of morality.

Because some people do have morals and some people with morals do get into government.
The reason people have morals is because they grew up in a structered society where they didn't have to learn to kill at a young age.

Where does the bribery of law enforcement and government officials fall into your idea of a government that keeps us from committing crimes?

Because people still keep commiting crimes with or without government.
Just alot less with government.

Because government are several people upholding social controle amongst theirselves. They also have to work in favor of the mass, do they want to hold their position.

That's the difference between a democracy government and a single dictator.

At 12/9/08 08:24 PM, D3NTATUS wrote:
As far as more heinous crimes, such as murder and rape, do you think the society will just sit on the bylines and say "well, not my problem." In a collectivist anarchy (which is what i believe in), the community will take matters into their own hands.

Then we get to the point where we can debate what crime would be. Since there is no norms on that, everyone has his own opinion if something wrong has been done and acts as they judge is appropriate themselves.
So the collective society is gonna need to lay a few ground rules and has it is once again reduced to as it is now. Laws are nothng more then conventions on what's right and wrong.

anyone seen Battle Royale?

Yeah.....

At 12/9/08 09:11 PM, aninjaman wrote: But why cant the people just leave the government and form a collective anarchy like you say?
Because with no control people fight for their own intrest and survival.

Only because we are brought up in an individualistic society that prides the survival of the individual over the worth of the team. In Anarchist Spain, people didn't fight just for themselves. And in nomadic hunter/gatherer tribes, they didn't just work for their own individual gain. Even primates don't work just for themselves; they work in groups. What evidence, besides your skewed idea of Africa, do you have to support your claim that humanity is nothing but a bunch of selfish dicks?

Because some people do have morals and some people with morals do get into government.
The reason people have morals is because they grew up in a structered society where they didn't have to learn to kill at a young age.

A collectivist anarchy is structured; it just lacks a coercive state. People still learn morals, just as we did when we were hunter/gatherers.

Because people still keep commiting crimes with or without government.
Just alot less with government.

Do you have any support to back up this claim, or just more of your opinions?

A question: have you done any research into anarchism?

At 12/9/08 09:28 PM, D3NTATUS wrote: Only because we are brought up in an individualistic society that prides the survival of the individual over the worth of the team. In Anarchist Spain, people didn't fight just for themselves. And in nomadic hunter/gatherer tribes, they didn't just work for their own individual gain. Even primates don't work just for themselves; they work in groups.

They work in groups because you survive better if you have people protect you.
Also primates packs and hunter gatherer tribes fought over land, women, and food all the time.

What evidence, besides your skewed idea of Africa, do you have to support your claim that humanity is nothing but a bunch of selfish dicks?

They're not dicks. I dont judge anyone for being selfish. Im an atheist who strongly believes in evoloution. In evoloution the main idea is for you to survive and as long as you mate you have completed your evolotionary goal.

A collectivist anarchy is structured; it just lacks a coercive state. People still learn morals, just as we did when we were hunter/gatherers.

Well then thats not really anarchy is it.
Besides why do you think humans formed government. Because they were better off with government.

Do you have any support to back up this claim, or just more of your opinions?

Do you have any support to prove Im wrong or just more opinions?

A question: have you done any research into anarchism?

I know what it is but do I research it extensively? No.
Im leaving for the night so meh.

At 12/9/08 09:20 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Then we get to the point where we can debate what crime would be. Since there is no norms on that, everyone has his own opinion if something wrong has been done and acts as they judge is appropriate themselves.
So the collective society is gonna need to lay a few ground rules and has it is once again reduced to as it is now. Laws are nothng more then conventions on what's right and wrong.

I think what you're not understanding here is that there would be laws in an anarchist society; anarchism is not some free-for-all, it just DOESN'T HAVE A STATE.

At 12/9/08 09:48 PM, aninjaman wrote: They work in groups because you survive better if you have people protect you.

So why is collectivist anarchism a bad thing? It's a community looking out for everyone.

Also primates packs and hunter gatherer tribes fought over land, women, and food all the time.

Fair enough. Do you have any support?

They're not dicks. I dont judge anyone for being selfish. Im an atheist who strongly believes in evoloution. In evoloution the main idea is for you to survive and as long as you mate you have completed your evolotionary goal.

If you haven't noticed by now, we're not evolving to survive. Rather than changing ourselves to adapt to the world, we're adapting the world to our own needs. So evolution is hardly a priority anymore. And if you're going to use the appeal to nature fallacy, we might as well be anarchist, since we evolved to our current gene pool under anarchy.

Well then thats not really anarchy is it.

How is it not? If it lacks a state, it's anarchy. What part of this don't you understand, jesus.

Besides why do you think humans formed government. Because they were better off with government.

Maybe those who were in control are better off.

Do you have any support to prove Im wrong or just more opinions?

I have been supporting my assertions. You, however, keep asserting that humans only look after themselves, etc.

I know what it is but do I research it extensively? No.

Then that's the problem; you really don't know what anarchy is. Anarchy is a complicated subject, and I'm not going to try and debate with someone who only understands the basic dictionary definition.

If you believe that we're an individualistic race, perhaps individualistic anarchism is for you.

At 12/9/08 11:02 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: no fucking quad posting contipec

fuck you, punkrockanarchy!

At 12/9/08 11:15 PM, D3NTATUS wrote:

At 12/9/08 11:02 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: no fucking quad posting contipec

fuck you, punkrockanarchy!

no but really, if you're gonna just pop in to backseat mod, get out.

At 12/9/08 11:44 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 12/9/08 11:18 PM, D3NTATUS wrote:

At 12/9/08 11:15 PM, D3NTATUS wrote:

At 12/9/08 11:02 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: no fucking quad posting contipec

fuck you, punkrockanarchy!

no but really, if you're gonna just pop in to backseat mod, get out.

I know I shouldnt but he is a fucking troll.

Actually, he seems to be far more well-informed than anybody else posting in this thread.

At 12/10/08 12:07 AM, Ayem wrote: Actually, he seems to be far more well-informed than anybody else posting in this thread.

...

At 12/9/08 09:57 PM, D3NTATUS wrote:

At 12/9/08 09:48 PM, aninjaman wrote: They work in groups because you survive better if you have people protect you.

So why is collectivist anarchism a bad thing? It's a community looking out for everyone.

While I won't pretend to know a lot about Collectivist Anarchism, from what you've said thusfar it sounds like it leaves the door wide open for tyranny of the majority. With no larger governmental body to protect citizens, smaller groups of people will gather and strip away the individual liberties of people with unpopular ideas/religions/habits/etc. Smaller groups of people are more easily corrupted than larger ones, and since all any of them would need is a majority of like-minded individuals to enact any form of justice, abuse would simply be unavoidable.

The only way I see a Collectivist Anarchy working is if all individuals were highly intelligent, open-minded, and inherently good, which we all know is not the case.

UPDATE:
I learned recently some other fatcs..
1.They say they want people having a job, but 2000 people were jobless after their workplace was burnt to crisps...
2.They even burned they 15 year old boy mothers' jewelery shop...
3.In some other cities the civilians tried to defend their homes by fighting the "anarchists"....so they actually did what the police was supposed to do..
4.They steal swords, guns and bows from shops to use them against policemen..

At 12/9/08 10:19 PM, Contipec wrote: I congratulate the Greek students! They have finally seen who the real enemy is: Capitalism, the USA, and Israel! Students from all other countries should follow the example! Its time to arise and burn all the richs!

The thing is, they burn even the poor people's meager properties..you know, you can have a 100,000 euro debt to a bank (banks, actually) and still have a home, TV, computer, car etc..

Its good to see that the people of the World are standing against capitalism worldwide! Bush, we are coming to get your head!

Greek Students, for the Internationale!

in the immortal words of 10cc:

"load up, load up, load up, with rubber bullets."

why don't the police just do that anyway?

Compare & Contrast

England, 2005: Jean Charles de Menezes is gunned down by the police. The police put forward several cock and bull stories saying he was a terrorist, he ran from them when they said for him to stop, that he was wearing a padded jacket, and that he jumped over the ticket barrier. Turns out he wasn't a terrorist, nor did he ever run or jump the ticket barrier, and was wearing a denim jacket. The general public constantly defend the actions. The police constantly try and justify their actions by citing it was protecting the public, by shooting a member of the public seven times in the head from point blank range (four shots missed - how?!?), having tracked them for over a mile as he walked and caught a bus without once trying to apprehend him. The officers involved in the operation have all since received promotions within the Metropolitan Police, whilst Met Police Chief Sir Ian Blair stayed in his job due to plenty of protection from the Blair government (no relation) and the subsequent Brown government. At an inquest in 2008, the jury are instructed that they cannot give a verdict of Unlawful Killing.

Greece, 2008: Greek police shoot dead a student. Almost immediately, there is widespread rioting in Athens, Thessaloniki, Patras, Komotini, Ionnina, Trikala, Piraeus, Larissa, Volos, as well as on the islands of Crete, Corfu and Samos. The government express regret at the actions immediately. The officer has been arrested on a charge of murder.

Does anyone think this has something to do with the French riots as well?

Or that there's something in the European water streams that's making their youth riot like this?

It just seems like we've heard this all before.

At 12/10/08 10:28 AM, Imperator wrote: Does anyone think this has something to do with the French riots as well?

Or that there's something in the European water streams that's making their youth riot like this?

It just seems like we've heard this all before.

It seems to me that in certain parts of continental Europe (France, Italy and Greece in particular) they're more inclined to go ron strike or riot in order to vent their frustrations and to make a point to those in charge.

In England, meanwhile, we're more likely to ignore it and toe the party line.

At 12/10/08 10:22 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:
Greece, 2008: Greek police shoot dead a student. Almost immediately, there is widespread rioting in Athens, Thessaloniki, Patras, Komotini, Ionnina, Trikala, Piraeus, Larissa, Volos, as well as on the islands of Crete, Corfu and Samos.

Yes..and this means that the rioting would happen in any case, and that the death of the boy had nothing to do with it..
oh, and today the boy had his funeral..

At 12/9/08 10:25 PM, Contipec wrote: Hitler

GODWINS LAW
YOU LOSE

But seriously, both pure capitalism and pure socialism are bad, and here's why

Pure capitalism (CEOs having complete control over business) would result in exploitation of workers by the CEOs, which would create a large gap between the rich and the poor. It would be modern-day slavery.

Pure socialism (Gov't having complete control over business) would result in an extremely weak economy and everyone being poor. Don't believe me? Look at China.

I think what we really need is some kind of balance between socialism and capitalism. We could still have free enterprise, but the government would play something of a role of a referee, making sure the CEOs don't take advantage of the workers.

At 12/10/08 11:54 AM, KeithHybrid wrote: I think what we really need is some kind of balance between socialism and capitalism.

Yes, but for this to work there is one small detail: there has to be no corruption.At all.And this, due to the human greedy nature, is highly improbable.Even impossible, l might say.
Take me for example: right now l am against corruption not becuause it's just bad, but because usually some rich company corrupts a politician so that they can pollute, exploit and even kill with no consequences (for them, that is), but who knows, if l become a politician l may become corrupted too...you get the point.

This is for the anarchists. You say that we are very ignorant. That may be so. Therefore, why not tell us a little bit about how you view anarchy so that we can better understand you. I was wondering, what exactly would your ideal anarchist society contain? How would you decide what was right and wrong? How would you enforce things when someone broke those rules? Who would enforce those rules? Would anyone have any right to control anyone? Would anyone own anything? Would parents have the right to tell their children what to do? Would teachers have the right to tell students what to do? Would everyone have access to military weapons, even nukes? Would we continue to have separate countries or would we merge into one entity containing all of the population and land on the planet? Would the modern way of life continue, or would it be better to go back to the way it was some time in the past? What would be done if a group wanted to break off and become their own sovern state with a different government.

If anyone has any more questions feel free to ask them.

At 12/10/08 10:45 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 12/10/08 10:28 AM, Imperator wrote: Does anyone think this has something to do with the French riots as well?

Or that there's something in the European water streams that's making their youth riot like this?

It just seems like we've heard this all before.

It seems to me that in certain parts of continental Europe (France, Italy and Greece in particular) they're more inclined to go ron strike or riot in order to vent their frustrations and to make a point to those in charge.

In England, meanwhile, we're more likely to ignore it and toe the party line.

Yeah, and in the US we're more inclined to bitch and complain and do what whatever we can as long as it doesn't inconvenience us in the slightest, which means that we just bitch and complain. We like to call it "spreading awareness," 'cause ya know, having lot's of people know about something does sooo much to fix the problem.

It's seem barbarism is back in business, and its found a home in the anarchist, communist and marxist movements. I don't know the gun laws in Greece, but I sincerely hope someone was able to shoot a few of those rioting cockroaches.

At 12/10/08 02:27 PM, Zeistro wrote:

:l don't know the gun laws in Greece, but I sincerely hope someone was able to shoot a few of those rioting cockroaches.

Gun laws?Hah!Nobody dares to touch them!Not even the police!They fear them because if they even injure another guy these "rioting cockroaches" are going to burn the whole country..and the medias are very mild about the police not doing a thing because if they accuse them too much then they will pay a little visit to their HQ..

At 12/10/08 02:50 PM, Contipec wrote:
Capitalists are the cockroaches. I hope they destroy as much as they can, and destroy a couple of banks while they are at it.

Would you like it if it was your bank?
Sure, banks have the money to restore their buildings, but what about the shopkeepers?
Even worse, would you like it if your house was burnt to ashes by a group of assholes that you didn't even talk to while the police is just watching (this actually happened)?
I said it before and l'll say it again, having a car and a house doesen't mean you are a capitalist..if this was true, then only homeless people would be real anti-capitalists..