Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/9/11 07:51 PM, djack wrote:

At 8/9/11 07:12 PM, Confucianism wrote: 'Cough cough'

You've been coughing a lot, you should probably get that checked by your capitalist/state funded hospital (depending on where you live).

Cuba is Communist.........

At 8/10/11 07:22 AM, pupot wrote: I can't be bothered to read all these posts. But im gonna guess they have the theme of peopel arguing that anarchism is anti-organization and saying that capitilism is human nature etc. I would just like people here to read up about Thelma, the Religion/Philosophy Aleister Crowely founded. His main law, was 'Do what you will'. There's a big difference between What you will and What you want

Well mainly people think that the place would go to hell if said place was to become anarchist territory. They do not seem to understand how it would happen before they open their mouths, it would not happen over night. They also think that those who would be in jails would ransack the place. The thing is, there are more people who would not do this than there are that would and those people would drive those people out. It also seems that most people have not even seen the post I have put up of a place where an anarchist society worked. It has worked numerous times.

I'm overthrowing this post!
I challenge you all to flamewar!
DOWN WITH CONFUCIANISM!

At 8/10/11 02:43 PM, Bantun wrote: I'm overthrowing this post!
I challenge you all to flamewar!
DOWN WITH CONFUCIANISM!

You cant overthrow anything on NG now shoosh.

At 8/10/11 02:43 PM, Bantun wrote: I'm overthrowing this post!
I challenge you all to flamewar!
DOWN WITH CONFUCIANISM!

I say we find a new leader, I nominate me, my first act would be to kill everyone who didn't nominate themselves

At 8/11/11 12:48 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: I say we find a new leader, I nominate me, my first act would be to kill everyone who didn't nominate themselves

Right..........run along now.

At 8/11/11 09:26 AM, Confucianism wrote:

At 8/11/11 12:48 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: I say we find a new leader, I nominate me, my first act would be to kill everyone who didn't nominate themselves

Right..........run along now.

Okay, let's have a vote.
Wait a second....
Anarchy accepts no leaders...

At 8/11/11 11:45 PM, Bantun wrote:

At 8/11/11 09:26 AM, Confucianism wrote:

Okay, let's have a vote.
Wait a second....
Anarchy accepts no leaders...

Yes I know. Your point?

At 8/12/11 09:20 AM, simple-but-sandy wrote: All of humanity needs leaders. It's what made us great.

And the most corrupt beings on the entire planet.

At 8/12/11 11:07 AM, Confucianism wrote:

At 8/12/11 09:20 AM, simple-but-sandy wrote: All of humanity needs leaders. It's what made us great.

And the most corrupt beings on the entire planet.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, give everyone power over everything they do and everyone becomes corrupted. At least with a corrupt leader they can be removed and replaced by someone who hasn't been corrupted yet.

At 8/12/11 11:43 AM, simple-but-sandy wrote:

At 8/12/11 11:07 AM, Confucianism wrote:

At 8/12/11 09:20 AM, simple-but-sandy wrote:

I'd rather have a corrupt leader than an entire civilization of people each vying to be the top dog over all others.

That would not happen in an anarchist society as thats not related to it.

Face it, there's a reason NO MAJOR SOCIETIES are anarchist, it just isn't good for humanity.

This has got to be about the forth time I have said this: There have been major anarchist societies that have worked. If it wasnt good then why would they do it? Dont try and be a smart ass and say then why are we capitalist if you think its not good for humanity.

At 8/12/11 11:37 AM, djack wrote: Absolute power corrupts absolutely, give everyone power over everything they do and everyone becomes corrupted. At least with a corrupt leader they can be removed and replaced by someone who hasn't been corrupted yet.

What the hell are you on about saying "give everyone power over everything they do and everyone becomes corrupted" thats not even a valid statement when coming to the subject of an anarchist populace.

At 8/12/11 11:55 AM, Confucianism wrote:

At 8/12/11 11:37 AM, djack wrote: Absolute power corrupts absolutely, give everyone power over everything they do and everyone becomes corrupted. At least with a corrupt leader they can be removed and replaced by someone who hasn't been corrupted yet.

What the hell are you on about saying "give everyone power over everything they do and everyone becomes corrupted" thats not even a valid statement when coming to the subject of an anarchist populace.

Without government there are no rule makers, without rule makers there are no rules, without rules there is nothing dictating what people can or can't do and therefore people have absolute power over their own actions and will eventually be corrupted just like any leader.

At 8/12/11 12:06 PM, djack wrote: Without government there are no rule makers, without rule makers there are no rules, without rules there is nothing dictating what people can or can't do and therefore people have absolute power over their own actions and will eventually be corrupted just like any leader.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of corruption. It doesnt work like that.

From now on, I shall reject all dominance.
That means I'm not listening you you!

At 8/12/11 12:49 PM, Bantun wrote: From now on, I shall reject all dominance.
That means I'm not listening you you!

The why do you keep coming back here.

At 8/12/11 01:15 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote: Name five.

Free Territory (November, 1918 - 1921)
Shinmin autonomous region (1929-1932)
Anarchist Catalonia (July 21, 1936 - May 1937)
Anarchist Aragon (1936)
Utopia, Ohio (1847)
Modern Times (later renamed Brentwood, New York; March 21, 1851)
Whiteway Colony (1898)
Stapleton Colony (1921)
Life and Labor Commune (1921)
Freetown Christiania (September 26, 1971)
Blitz (movement) (1982)
Trumbullplex (1993)

Good enough for you is it or should I write a report on them aswell?

At 8/12/11 01:15 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote:

don't cheat by naming societies that were anarchist but are no longer. If anarchy really is that great it would stand that test of time and imperialism to carve out a permanent legacy.

Fool. Do you realy think that any form of govenment would allow this? Of course not. They crushed those involved because it threatened their power. Even the Communists dont like it. Numerouse times they have betrayed anarchists.

At 8/12/11 01:56 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote: Try harder next time.

Its so easy to criticise so hard to create wouldnt you say.

At 8/12/11 02:19 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote: So you're asking for me to create a list of non-anarchist societies that are major and still in existance?

Your an idiot.

At 8/12/11 11:43 AM, simple-but-sandy wrote: Face it, there's a reason NO MAJOR SOCIETIES are anarchist, it just isn't good for humanity.

Actualy I have answered your first question. "Do you realy think that any form of govenment would allow this? Of course not. They crushed those involved because it threatened their power. Even the Communists dont like it. Numerouse times they have betrayed anarchists." Also due to the fact that the media has portrayed anarchists in a bad light. This what I said to that. Yes, there have been anarchist societies, but you seem to think it will never happen again. I have said why there arent any at this moment above but it seems you didnt see the post before.

At 8/12/11 12:35 PM, Confucianism wrote:

At 8/12/11 12:06 PM, djack wrote: Without government there are no rule makers, without rule makers there are no rules, without rules there is nothing dictating what people can or can't do and therefore people have absolute power over their own actions and will eventually be corrupted just like any leader.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of corruption. It doesnt work like that.

Corruption is a willingness to abuse power to benefit yourself at the detriment to others (or if you prefer a dictionary definition: moral perversion; depravity, the act of corrupting or state of being corrupt, perversion of integrity, or corrupt or dishonest proceedings non of which are specific to government). If you have absolute power over your own actions without any laws telling you what not to do then there is nothing preventing you from abusing that power by taking advantage of other people.

Confucianism can you honestly stop making yourself, me, Anarchy and real anarchists as a whole look bad?

You guys should just give up, it's like arguing with a small child or glen beck. In fact, you may be arguing with a small child or glen beck (they're essentially the same mentally.)

No matter how idiotically incorrect his ideas are in every way, he ain't gonna drop them.

At 8/12/11 05:20 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Confucianism can you honestly stop making yourself, me, Anarchy and real anarchists as a whole look bad?

what is this Marxist paradise bs? I WANNA BREAK THINGS!

serious time: i think once the population becomes too big, things become a little bit hard to hold together. if i could chose any system of government, i would chose DIRECT democracy. (this system is only still used in Switzerland, it was first used by Greeks and then again by the Vikings.) and look at Switzerland as an example of this, they are a very small country with little space to develop and yet they are rolling in cash. They refuse to go to wars, maintain a very powerful DEFENSIVE military. (all this without having direct access to the ocean either.)

how direct democracy works is people as individuals have a say in what happens. It does not go by regional representation and you don't have to elect people to speak for you. In this day and age, even for Switzerland it would be a challenge so I'm sure they made some compromises but it works great. they hold a lot of referendums for any sort of large change such as joining the UN.

my second choice is anarchy as it has occurred in nature with everything being in balance. what we have now is 100% going to crash and burn at some point.

At 8/12/11 09:17 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: serious time: i think once the population becomes too big, things become a little bit hard to hold together. if i could chose any system of government, i would chose DIRECT democracy. (this system is only still used in Switzerland, it was first used by Greeks and then again by the Vikings.) and look at Switzerland as an example of this, they are a very small country with little space to develop and yet they are rolling in cash. They refuse to go to wars, maintain a very powerful DEFENSIVE military. (all this without having direct access to the ocean either.)

how direct democracy works is people as individuals have a say in what happens. It does not go by regional representation and you don't have to elect people to speak for you. In this day and age, even for Switzerland it would be a challenge so I'm sure they made some compromises but it works great. they hold a lot of referendums for any sort of large change such as joining the UN.

my second choice is anarchy as it has occurred in nature with everything being in balance. what we have now is 100% going to crash and burn at some point.

It helps that the people of Switzerland are surrounded by passes (much like the one the Greeks defended at Thermopylae) and never needed to go to war until the development of aerial combat. That's a very large advantage that no other nation on the planet has had and is the sole reason the Swiss are in a position to remain neutral in the world.

Also, where is this natural anarchy? Every creature in nature that lives in groups has some form of hierarchy that would constitute a government society. Apes even have methods of capitalist currency using service barters to pay for the things they want/need. If you know of some group of animals that does have a true anarchy don't hold back.

At 8/12/11 09:30 PM, djack wrote:

At 8/12/11 09:17 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: serious time: i think once the population becomes too big, things become a little bit hard to hold together. if i could chose any system of government, i would chose DIRECT democracy. (this system is only still used in Switzerland, it was first used by Greeks and then again by the Vikings.) and look at Switzerland as an example of this, they are a very small country with little space to develop and yet they are rolling in cash. They refuse to go to wars, maintain a very powerful DEFENSIVE military. (all this without having direct access to the ocean either.)

how direct democracy works is people as individuals have a say in what happens. It does not go by regional representation and you don't have to elect people to speak for you. In this day and age, even for Switzerland it would be a challenge so I'm sure they made some compromises but it works great. they hold a lot of referendums for any sort of large change such as joining the UN.

my second choice is anarchy as it has occurred in nature with everything being in balance. what we have now is 100% going to crash and burn at some point.

It helps that the people of Switzerland are surrounded by passes (much like the one the Greeks defended at Thermopylae) and never needed to go to war until the development of aerial combat. That's a very large advantage that no other nation on the planet has had and is the sole reason the Swiss are in a position to remain neutral in the world.

Also, where is this natural anarchy? Every creature in nature that lives in groups has some form of hierarchy that would constitute a government society. Apes even have methods of capitalist currency using service barters to pay for the things they want/need. If you know of some group of animals that does have a true anarchy don't hold back.

for one, i have already linked to the humbolt squid, heck there are a few animals that behave in the same way it does where it just runs around eating everything in sight including its own species. Sharks attack eachother too, but thats not the point, its more of just reverting to how humans behaved before we had to worry about sucking up all of the earth's resources. not so much "anarchy" as it is more like "the good old days when all you had to fear was starvation and maybe an aggressive tribe or two." instead of having to fear bankruptcy, terrorists, corrupt politicians and the distinct possibility of nuclear annihilation.

and the part where of Switzerland is highly defensible does contribute to their ability to remain neutral but only from aggression, they have referendums over big changes in foreign policy. If America did this I highly doubt the US would be in Iraq right now. there's a good chance you wouldn't be in Libya either. I like that they can't just go to war against the will of their own people on a whim, staying neutral has also avoided raising the ire of terrorist groups in the same way american interventionism did. (although Russia, Britain and France are pretty guilty of this as well.)

but the main part that appeals to me is that your vote always counts and you have a say in what your government does at all times. only possible in small nations but that's why i don't like this world of big nations with .

At 8/13/11 03:00 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: for one, i have already linked to the humbolt squid, heck there are a few animals that behave in the same way it does where it just runs around eating everything in sight including its own species. Sharks attack eachother too, but thats not the point, its more of just reverting to how humans behaved before we had to worry about sucking up all of the earth's resources. not so much "anarchy" as it is more like "the good old days when all you had to fear was starvation and maybe an aggressive tribe or two." instead of having to fear bankruptcy, terrorists, corrupt politicians and the distinct possibility of nuclear annihilation.

Even in "the good old days" there were leaders. The creatures you've mentioned as being anarchist live alone except when they are trying to mate or eat each other in which case they do the deed and run away. Humans can't live alone, we're pack animal by nature and need companionship. All animals that live in groups have a leader it's the inevitable result of multiple individuals living and working together for the benefit of the group.

and the part where of Switzerland is highly defensible does contribute to their ability to remain neutral but only from aggression, they have referendums over big changes in foreign policy. If America did this I highly doubt the US would be in Iraq right now. there's a good chance you wouldn't be in Libya either. I like that they can't just go to war against the will of their own people on a whim, staying neutral has also avoided raising the ire of terrorist groups in the same way american interventionism did. (although Russia, Britain and France are pretty guilty of this as well.)

If Switzerland wasn't so easily defensible they never would have had the opportunity to be neutral. Most nations in the world have to spend their time anticipating potential threats and then doing what is necessary to stop those threats from attacking. In case you've forgotten Hussein didn't exactly discourage the U.S. from believing he had nuclear weapons and he did have biological and chemical weapons which he had been testing on his own people, besides the fact that the Iraqi people haven't been the ones opposing U.S. troops but instead it was terrorists entering Iraq for the sole purpose of attacking us. Terrorists create conflict where it isn't necessary to attack the nations that they see as evil for having the freedoms that they aren't permitted in their own nations. If you really believe that our presence in the Middle East is the only reason the U.S. is attacked by terrorists then you are deluding yourself.

but the main part that appeals to me is that your vote always counts and you have a say in what your government does at all times. only possible in small nations but that's why i don't like this world of big nations with .

Small nations grow. The only way to prevent that is to enact severe birth control laws that most people would see as a violation of their rights and in your idea of a perfect nation would quickly be voted away by the people.

Well I don't agree with the OP's condemnation of capitalism. It would have been nice to seen an intelligent discussion about the tenets of capitalism, but these so-called "arguments" against anarchy are just embarrassing.

Just to point out one huge logical fallacy. It was implied that since there had been no major anarchist societies in the past it was in fact impossible for an anarchist society to exist. I believe this would fall under the category of fallacy of converse accident or hasty generalization. Even if we assume for argument's sake that all the OP's examples weren't good enough, it still does not follow that anarchy is inherently unsustainable.

In fact the whole underlying motivation behind anarchism is the idea that our modern day civilization is doing almost everything wrong, so it would follow there wouldn't be many examples of societies doing things right, and that it something everyone should be able to agree on. If you look at the world and cannot see that things need to change then well what the hell are you arguing for anyway? Just go out and enjoy your perfect fantasy world.

Now the difference between anarchists and non-anarchist is the non-anarchist will make an appeal to the concept of a "necessary evil". So no matter how self-destructive our culture becomes, the non-anarchist simply views it as a fact of life. You all should be able to make the connection with the story about the frog in the boiling water.

Also there's the whole self-fulfilling prophecy thing. The non-anarchist always obsesses about how there would be just one person who would throw everything into chaos. Well you know who that one person is? It's not some bloodthirsty monster. There's no one like that out there in the real world. Almost everyone has some sort of perceived justification for there own actions, just like you have a perceived justification for the excesses and depravity of the state. So what are you truly afraid of? The answer is you are afraid of yourself.

One final thing. In response to the idea that anarchy conflicts with human nature, well so does the system we are currently under. Just look at how much grueling effort you have wasted in this thread trying to discredit the philosophy of anarchy. Just who is it you are trying to convince? Let's just say for the moment that true anarchy is somehow "impossible". Then shouldn't the idea be to use the concept of anarchy as a reference to put our efforts towards getting as close to it as we possibly can? 99.999% of the speed of light is still a lot faster than 65 miles per hour. Ya get my drift?