Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/3/07 10:02 PM, Me-Patch wrote: If an anarchist society were to exist how would it make decisions?

It wouldn't. Dur.

In an anarchist society, the anarchists would rejoice for approximately five minutes. Then, they would get angry when they realize there's no police to prevent anyone from stealing their stuff. Soon afterwards, some people who aren't anarchists will form a government that will discriminate against them and then they'll be worse off then they were in the first place.

(Exaggeration, yes, but what's to keep people from forming governments after anarchy onsets?)

At 7/4/07 10:15 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Exaggeration, yes, but what's to keep people from forming governments after anarchy onsets?

Exactly, thus the best solution for them would be to form a commune.

At 7/4/07 09:18 PM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 7/3/07 10:02 PM, Me-Patch wrote: If an anarchist society were to exist how would it make decisions?

It wouldn't. Dur.

Than an anrchist society can't exist? Opinions?

Please,don't make fun of me, but royalty is lording over Canada. Most of taxpayers dollars go to them. We have frickin' GST and PST . That's why I like Anarchy. Gst and Pst are high taxes, about 14% tax.

At 7/5/07 01:15 AM, Dante555 wrote: Please,don't make fun of me, but royalty is lording over Canada. Most of taxpayers dollars go to them. We have frickin' GST and PST . That's why I like Anarchy. Gst and Pst are high taxes, about 14% tax.

Maybe learn to appreciate what the government does for you? Like healthcare, school, and roads?

You can never have anarchy.

It's like trying to draw a perfect circle.

People seek power, so there will always be someone trying to take charge.

All of you users saying "But yeah, I could rape my girlfriend" etc... Remember, it's anarchy. She could cut off your balls, and kill bubbles, your pet bunny.

There will always be someone in charge -- be it one person (dictatorship) or a group of people.

At 6/17/07 11:54 AM, PHM wrote: what do u guys think bout anarchy??

I think the "a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link" principle applies to anarchy. All it takes is one psychopathic rebel to send the whole thing crumbling to the muck.

anarchy is a lack of a system of government, usually due to foreign occupation. few people want anarchy because they have to fend for themselves without government to tell them what to do.

Anarchism is either: A society in which all existing social conditions have been abolished, or the people live in a commune. Part of anarchism is making your own desicions, desicions effecting the whole community could be voted on, or temporary councils could be established from time to time. Anarchists consider anarchism to be a "direct democracy".

Dirrect democracy has it's flaws though, the oldest dirrect democracy only consisted of the Elite males; And even then there were too many people to make descions.

All systems, philosophies, etc., have their flaws. The only way to overcome these flaws is to test them, and come up with better answers to them.

At 7/11/07 09:11 PM, Kev-o wrote: Anarchism is either: A society in which all existing social conditions have been abolished, or the people live in a commune. Part of anarchism is making your own desicions, desicions effecting the whole community could be voted on, or temporary councils could be established from time to time. Anarchists consider anarchism to be a "direct democracy".

So I guess you support a more viking-style "government" over pure anarchism, then?

At 7/11/07 09:11 PM, Kev-o wrote: Anarchism is the people live in a commune.

incorrect. that is defined as "communism". therefore, there is only one definition of anarchy: no government.

At 7/11/07 10:18 PM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 7/11/07 09:11 PM, Kev-o wrote: Anarchism is either: A society in which all existing social conditions have been abolished, or the people live in a commune. Part of anarchism is making your own desicions, desicions effecting the whole community could be voted on, or temporary councils could be established from time to time. Anarchists consider anarchism to be a "direct democracy".

So I guess you support a more viking-style "government" over pure anarchism, then?

There are no police, and there is no government. No one in particular makes desicions effecting everyone, everyone makes their own desicions. I don't see how this at all strays from pure anarchism. I don't see how councils go against pure anarchism.

At 7/13/07 12:05 AM, w00t0ftheday wrote:

At 7/11/07 09:11 PM, Kev-o wrote: Anarchism is the people live in a commune.

incorrect. that is defined as "communism". therefore, there is only one definition of anarchy: no government.

No, a commune isn't neccesarily communism, for communism and anarchism, though closely related are still different. Anarchist communes are pretty common.

At 7/13/07 04:36 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 7/11/07 10:18 PM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 7/11/07 09:11 PM, Kev-o wrote: Anarchism is either: A society in which all existing social conditions have been abolished, or the people live in a commune. Part of anarchism is making your own desicions, desicions effecting the whole community could be voted on, or temporary councils could be established from time to time. Anarchists consider anarchism to be a "direct democracy".

So I guess you support a more viking-style "government" over pure anarchism, then?

There are no police, and there is no government. No one in particular makes desicions effecting everyone, everyone makes their own desicions. I don't see how this at all strays from pure anarchism. I don't see how councils go against pure anarchism.

if in any case one person of this council makes a descision that will future wise deturmine the fate of that individual; such as Criminal justice; it defeats the purpose of anarchism.

At 7/13/07 05:24 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

if in any case one person of this council makes a descision that will future wise deturmine the fate of that individual; such as Criminal justice; it defeats the purpose of anarchism.

I'm not saying a Criminal Justice council, just important issues that effect the community as a whole.

At 7/11/07 09:24 PM, Kev-o wrote: All systems, philosophies, etc., have their flaws. The only way to overcome these flaws is to test them, and come up with better answers to them.

Somalia?

At 7/14/07 07:32 PM, BlisteringFreakachuu wrote:

At 7/11/07 09:24 PM, Kev-o wrote: All systems, philosophies, etc., have their flaws. The only way to overcome these flaws is to test them, and come up with better answers to them.

Somalia?

Somalia is not anarchism. It is not based off of anarchist philosophy. It doesn't even appear as anarchism.

incorrect. that is defined as "communism". therefore, there is only one definition of anarchy: no government.

No, a commune isn't neccesarily communism, for communism and anarchism, though closely related are still different. Anarchist communes are pretty common.

and so are nudist communes. there's nothing in the name.

Many, many people don't understand anarchy and their ignorance is frusterating. I am an anarchist and have had 14 people throw their best or only arguements they could muster up and still proven them wrong, although these people might not want to realize it and continue to fight with rusted or broken points. If you want to have a true or at least fundamental understanding of anarchy, please read this debate here.

At 7/4/07 10:15 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: (Exaggeration, yes, but what's to keep people from forming governments after anarchy onsets?)

the masses, no matter the time or place, will always have a sort of power. if an anarchist community of, let's say, 569 people exists, and 69 of those people want to set up a government, then the only the thing that technically could stop them is the 500 other people

wether or not they'd want the government set up would matter, but regardless, the majority would overrule.

I can't imagine the day when enough people are so repressed that anarchy seems like a good idea to everyone.

anarchy is only a reason to be a emo/goth person.

At 6/17/07 12:19 PM, CapitalistSocialist wrote: Anarchy is worse than Communism... it truly is the worst from of governance.

In terms of stability... it is, and undoubtably out of the anarchy some sort of leadership, or factions will arise, then one faction will swallow up another, and another, until a main government is formed. Going through the cycles of tribalism, monarchy, and so on until it reaches Modern Democracy or Modern Socialism or Modern Communism.

It's called history man, learn it.

At 7/11/07 09:11 PM, Kev-o wrote: Anarchism is either: A society in which all existing social conditions have been abolished, or the people live in a commune. Part of anarchism is making your own desicions, desicions effecting the whole community could be voted on, or temporary councils could be established from time to time. Anarchists consider anarchism to be a "direct democracy".

So you're saying that if we got rid of ALL of the American stigmas, taboos, and laws and shit that resulted from them...
WE'd have Anarchy???

I personally do not believe in wide-scale anarchism. I only think small communities would work. Anarchism isn't for emo/goth kids, anarchism is for the people. It is a power of and by the people.

At 7/15/07 11:58 AM, Kev-o wrote: I personally do not believe in wide-scale anarchism. I only think small communities would work.

then what's even the point in the theory?

At 7/15/07 01:02 PM, capitaI wrote:

At 7/15/07 11:58 AM, Kev-o wrote: I personally do not believe in wide-scale anarchism. I only think small communities would work.

then what's even the point in the theory?

It would work in America if we split into 10 million tribes?