At 9/23/06 09:51 AM, Kev-o wrote: The world would STILL be more peaceful without guns, no matter what you say. Face it, a majority of major crimes are with guns.

Yeah, then people would kill with knives. The only reason why a majority of people are killed with guns is because its easier.

Think with logic plz.

larger is really nice with a kebab

Anarchy=no rules=every man for himself=the strong crushing the weak underfoot.

Draw your own conclusions from that.

At 9/23/06 10:27 AM, TheDeppmister wrote:

:: Yeah, then people would kill with knives. The only reason why a majority of people are killed with guns is because its easier.

Think with logic plz.

Killing someone with a knife could possibly take time, time that people don't have. I don't remember the Native Americans killing within their own tribes.

people should follow and belive whatever they want to believe, if they want to believe in anarchy let them do it, if not, whatever.

At 9/17/06 08:26 PM, reviewer-general wrote: I should probably expand on this a liitle more. I went to my high-school the other day wearing a shirt with an anarchy symbol on it. Immediately people began to think I worshipped satan or something, liked death and chaos, etc. (don't ask me why).

Look up the word, and you'll know why. Chaos is synonomous with 'anarchy'.

I was talking about it with a buddy of mine and we came to the conclusion that as an extreme outsider who doesn't give a shit about the region (wherever it is; nowhere specific), utter chaos is pretty cool.

It shows you someone's maturity age, in my opinion, when they say or live by certain ideas, or ideals. 'UItter chaos is pretty cool'?
Definitely one of those certain ideals.

At 9/17/06 09:32 PM, Shootem-up wrote: The problem with anarchy is the minute you mention the word, people assume it is synonymous with "chaos", which of course it is not.

No...it really is.

It would be naive to say anarchy could work on a large scale in our society, but there are anarcho-type places all around the world (dial house, for example), which proves that it could work on smaller scales.

If people want to anarchy-up their trailor parks, or suburb neighborhoods, I could honestly give a fuck less.
As long as I didn't live in one of those neighborhoods/trailor parks, that is.

At 9/18/06 06:06 PM, Shootem-up wrote: Anarchy is NOT CHAOS
Educate yourselfs for fuck sakes.
Anarchy does not strip you of rights, anarchy gives you more.
I could go on and on about how half of you have the whole idea of anarchy wrong but I'm way to lazy, read around fags.

Really, grow up. You'll (and this is a promise) grow up one day, and realize how silly you used to be. I know I look back at things I thought I agreed with five years ago, and I realize what a fool I was.

Open a dictionary, and look up the word 'anarchy'. It's literally synonomous with the word 'chaos'. That isn't my opinion. That's Webster's, friend.

How does anarchy provide me with rights? Do you have an answer? Or is it just like everyone thinks it is?
'Utter chaos is pretty cool', right? Break it all down and start over, man. Right?

Anarchy is a lame fucking pipe dream. You want to 'break the system down', and 'set everyone free' and 'give it back to the people'. Do you, though, have any plan for such a thing? And even if you did bring down the system...then what?
Think about it. What do you honestly think will happen?
The lights and government and all communication go out for a couple days in New Orleans, and it turns into a hellhole of crime, abuse, neglect, and rage. And that was just one goddamn city, for a couple days.
Imagine the same thing nationwide.

Is that where you want to live, Stupid?

I think it could work, if people lived in small tribe type things.

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

yep, works in a group of ~26 ppl

At 9/24/06 10:02 AM, Kev-o wrote: I think it could work, if people lived in small tribe type things.

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Yes, lets break the world into about 200,000,000 tribes who are completly isolated so nobody tries to takeover another.

At 9/17/06 08:16 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote: What a lazy attempt at a thread....

But yeah, anarchy, like many philosophies is a good theory, but in practice it's not practical.

it is not a good theory, anarchy is self defeating you idiot.

In a state of anarchy there will be people with a lust for power, there will be people who join with them to obtain that power and a monarchy will eventually be established.

it saddens me to think people in my age group can be so ignorant.

it wouldn't work just yet. basically because humans are collectively a bunch of bastards.

well you see that if you could find people that you could trust, you could, in theory, form anarchy. If people could find it within themselves to resist temptation, they could form anarchy and live peacefully in it. A utopia, if perfected, would be complete anarchy. Of course that is completely theoretical and is improbable.

At 9/24/06 03:27 PM, Dogness wrote: well you see that if you could find people that you could trust, you could, in theory, form anarchy. If people could find it within themselves to resist temptation, they could form anarchy and live peacefully in it. A utopia, if perfected, would be complete anarchy. Of course that is completely theoretical and is improbable.

is IMPOSSIBLE.

I for one, want Anarchy, then I can move in with my army and weapons and ensalve averyone else: creating a dystopia. Obey! Submit! Obey! Submit! Ahahahaha!

At 9/24/06 10:02 AM, Kev-o wrote: I think it could work, if people lived in small tribe type things.

If people lived in tribes? If people lived in tribes?

What year is it, kev? Is it still two thousand and six? And you want to live in tribes?
What about electricity? And goddamn jobs? Should we just split three hundred million Americans into...oh, I don't know...seventy two thousan tribes? And then fucking what, Kev-o? Who provides law? Who provides order? Who keeps the power on? Who stops the rapists, and child molesters, and, god fucking forbid it, the terrorists and unaligned countries of the world from slitting the throat of this nation?
What, you don't think countries like Iran, and China, and Russia would love to see America split, in such a way?

Oh, the people are going to do all that? The People. The same mob that elects bumbling, lying politicians, time after time after time? The same country that absorbs almost half the cocain made in the entire world? The same country that can't manage it's own cities without finger pointing, and media influence, and constant government aid?

This nation would eat itself alive, without the strict system of laws that now bind us.
We already consume ourselves, and poison our own people, with the law.

If you trust your neighbors, and your community, enough to allow them to answer 9-11 calls (assuming things like Emergency Services and telephones still exist, in your little anarchist head), and keep the electricity on, and defend the nation, and grow (and ship/market/sell) the food, then you just go on ahead and move into your little commune experiment.

God forbid you join us in the real world.

At 9/23/06 11:56 AM, Steel-Reserve wrote: Anarchy=no rules=every man for himself=the strong crushing the weak underfoot.

You're post = untrue and uneducated = please read and learn or shut the fuck up, thanks.

At 9/23/06 11:30 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: No...it really is.

sigh
Anarchism in a political sense is not a synonym of chaos.
I've already said it couldn't work on a large scale (global, etc) because we as a society are so far down the path of capitalism that to revert to such a radically different school of thought (government vs. no government) could never work. There would be mass rejection because people don't want all they're precious luxuries taken away with them. Sure, luxuries are great, but look at the empty lives the majority of people lead.

But if you really want an example of anarchy working, search up Dial House.

At 9/25/06 02:09 AM, Shootem-up wrote:

At 9/23/06 11:30 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

There would be mass rejection because people don't want all they're precious luxuries taken away with them. Sure, luxuries are great, but look at the empty lives the majority of people lead.

'Luxeries' like electricity, and shelter, and law and order, and societal institutions?
Is food a 'luxery' too?

But if you really want an example of anarchy working, search up Dial House.

Anything can work with a dozen people or so. From communism, to socialism, to facism.

At 9/23/06 10:57 PM, Reverend-Kyle wrote:

At 9/23/06 11:56 AM, Steel-Reserve wrote: Anarchy=no rules=every man for himself=the strong crushing the weak underfoot.

Draw your own conclusions from that.

No. This isn't true.

Why not?

At 9/25/06 02:01 AM, Shootem-up wrote:

At 9/23/06 11:56 AM, Steel-Reserve wrote: Anarchy=no rules=every man for himself=the strong crushing the weak underfoot.

You're post = untrue and uneducated = please read and learn or shut the fuck up, thanks.

Anarchy is the absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion.

Personally, I favor anarchy over all of the other forms of government, because it provides the greatest freedom to mankind. However, after over one-half century on this planet, I fully recognize that this philosophy will not work, as our civilization would be destroyed by chaos. My recognition of the failings of anarchy are unlike the people who create nonsensical theories like communism which sound great on the surface but completely unravel when practical considerations are introduced into the equation.

http://www.apathetic..alEconomicSystem.htm

Now, help yourself to a slice of humble pie.

At 9/25/06 09:00 AM, Reverend-Kyle wrote:

It requires a change in thought. And, I hope, if how you think about a situation changes, your actions in that situation will change. If groups of people decided to form Anarchist communes, it's not likely that they would consider exploiting or crushing each other.

If it were in a bubble, where every action could be closely monitered, then opression probably wouldn't happen. I'm highly sceptical that anarchy could work in the long run. (by "long run", I mean, however many years it would take to establish a stable anarchist society). All it would take is one individual, and an individual who doesn't want to play by the rules, to turn a system like that into a quagmire.

I have doubts about the success of pacifism for the same reason.

Would it work? If everyone (in a group) worked together, the groundwork could probably be set.

Of course. I can support a viewpoint like that, although it reminds me of that classic truism, "A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link." The success of an anarchist society would naturally depend on the total and unfailing cooperation of all peoples concerned, for it to be successful.

I think it's interesting that people think Capitalism actually works -- I'm relatively certain it has been mentioned in this thread and I just a new thread about it. There are some videos of Michael Parenti on Google Video. He discusses in one of them (I don't remember which) why Capitalism doesn't work.

Pure capitalism is a system where the great majority of the population is controlled by a small contingent of super-wealthy buisinessmen. America is therefore not a pure capitalist system, since there are laws in place that limit the power of corporations and guarantees that the average worker is compensated for in a variety of small ways.

I swear, one of these days, I am going to read Karl Marx's Das Capital, just for to see what the hoopla is about.

So why do you think Capitalism works?

I don't think un-inhibited capitalism works. I think capitalism that is controlled and monitered by a large group of outside advocates works.

When someone is benefitting, it would make sense that they think the system they're using works.

Naturally.

A social construct of what is desireable can 'decide' what it means for something to work.

But that would people writing rules for other people to live by, meaning it's just a watered-down version of anarchy.

I want to clarify that the only reason I chose the above source was because of what the author said of anarchy. All of the stuff in the source about capitalism, I do not support. That is why I only quoted the section of the article that summed up anarchy.

At 9/25/06 09:00 AM, Reverend-Kyle wrote: So why do you think Capitalism works? Is it because we can sit comfortably in the North and West? Is it because we're taught (socialized into it, I suppose) that we should look out for #1?

A social construct of what is desireable can 'decide' what it means for something to work.

You still have yet to explain how it's not working.

At 9/17/06 08:26 PM, reviewer-general wrote:
I should probably expand on this a liitle more. I went to my high-school the other day wearing a shirt with an anarchy symbol on it. Immediately people began to think I worshipped satan or something, liked death and chaos, etc. (don't ask me why). I was talking about it with a buddy of mine and we came to the conclusion that as an extreme outsider who doesn't give a shit about the region (wherever it is; nowhere specific), utter chaos is pretty cool. I will agree that it is not practical. But it's a place to start over from...

I used to think like that. The problem is that in the short time between the old government and new one, who's to stop someone from killing you/stealing all your stuff at gunpoint? I don't appreciate the system of government I'm under though. I just don't think anarchy is the way to reset things is all.

At 9/23/06 09:51 AM, Kev-o wrote: The world would STILL be more peaceful without guns, no matter what you say. Face it, a majority of major crimes are with guns.

Yes but they are here to stay. Without any weapons at all people would still beat each other to death. Wether or not that's better doesn't matter, since guns are here, we need guns to defend ourselves.

I have still always advocated Anarcho-capitalism, but I know it's unachievable. Anarchy in theory is good because there would be no government, ergo no government tyranny and corruption, but without government people wouldn't have anyone accountable too on a mundane level.

At 9/23/06 10:27 AM, TheDeppmister wrote:

At 9/23/06 09:51 AM, Kev-o wrote: The world would STILL be more peaceful without guns, no matter what you say. Face it, a majority of major crimes are with guns.

Yeah, then people would kill with knives. The only reason why a majority of people are killed with guns is because its easier.

Think with logic plz.

Listen, im in a criminal justice class, no, the majority of crimes are misdemeanors for all intents and purposes we shall use the wedding cake model with the smallest portion at the top and getting bigger as we go down this is an actual model ppl to describe the hype and media coverage certain types of crme get, remember id did not name this model, someone else did. at the top: celebrity crimes, as implies, crimes by duh! celebrities! These crimes get big headlines and frontpage like OJ Simpson (dont even start on this) Next is High profile crimes, as im sure u all know, murders, rape, serious arson, and other major issues, like Bucky Philips (again not the thread to start this on) next are the less serious felonies, the highlight of police beat, these are the robbery, burglury, assault, something you could get MORe than a year for but nothing the media would deem huge or important stuff. Finally misdemeanors, the little shit. the stufff you wouldnt sneeze at, unless ur the victim! by this i mean, shoplifting, petty larseny, public order crimes (prostitution, gambling, ect), guns fall at the high profile crimes and up, im sorry for ranting but im makign a point, what if you get rid of guns? huh? that wont stop a bug burly man from whacking u in the head with a baseball bat and taking your shoes!, it wont stop your car from being hotwired and stolen, remember ppl there are 9 identified deadly waepons, a loaded and working gun is just one, i cant rcall all of them but take it from me, im no expert but i KNOW if you eliminate guns, no it wont make the world much better and criminal posession of an illegal waepon crimes would SKYROCKET! nowadays people illegaly own ak47's grenaded, uzis so that rate would just go thru the friggin roof man sorry this is so long, im signin off now!

ciao, guv!