Why not go with anarchy in the United States? Sometimes it seems very unreasonable to how we all have to agree with what we are told to do and obey so many laws. With anarchy you get more freedom of choice. Yes i know this idea is "far out there" but in my opinion this is better than where we are headed with Obama as president.
Anarchy in the U.S.
3,190 Views | 54 Replies
Who is going to pay for the army? Or scientific research? Or road and sewage repair? Or keep your neighbor from shooting you and taking your house?
Anarchy never works.
Proud member of the Atheist Church
sweet21- they found his birth certificate and he wasn't born in America but Hawaii, so will he be fired from being the president?
Is there any known country that is anarchist (at least mostly) that works very well?
You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock
At 8/5/09 12:43 PM, Ericho wrote: Is there any known country that is anarchist (at least mostly) that works very well?
Somalia. I mean, just look at how happy they are.
Hah. I'm glad you mentioned Somalia.
In anarchy, someone will always take power because in an anarchist society, everything is uncertain and unsafe. We formed governments in the beginning to allow us to be more safe from the elements and humanity (which is far more dangerous than the elements). Anarchy provides no protection, and so thus when somebody wanted something they would take something.
You may say that friendship would allow those who had the thing taken fight back against that person, but then a dispute would happen between two groups of friends. Then it would become a time of the survival of the fittest; the strongest group would prevail. Factions would form, and leaders would take shape.
Then those leaders would not want to risk losing their leadership, and what do you have? A government.
Anarchy will never work in a large-scale form. Ever.
Fancy Signature
At 8/5/09 12:02 PM, ShnizZle wrote: Why not go with anarchy in the United States? Sometimes it seems very unreasonable to how we all have to agree with what we are told to do and obey so many laws. With anarchy you get more freedom of choice. Yes i know this idea is "far out there" but in my opinion this is better than where we are headed with Obama as president.
Anarchy is not freedom. Anarchy is chaos.
If there is no government the people are not free. You wouldn't even be able to leave your house because it will get robbed or destroyed without your protection.
And with chaos, the people will beg for the anarchy to end. Turning towards the people who started it. Which would in end turn us into a oligarchy.
Which is a step below democracy in my opinion.
Republic > Democracy > Oligarchy > Monarchy > Anarchy
You could really go for a chocolate chip cookie right about now...
At 8/5/09 12:02 PM, ShnizZle wrote: Why not go with anarchy in the United States? Sometimes it seems very unreasonable to how we all have to agree with what we are told to do and obey so many laws.
Care to explain when that happens? The laws are their for a reason. US and A is one of those countries where the people can basically do and change what they want.
With anarchy you get more freedom of choice. Yes i know this idea is "far out there" but in my opinion this is better than where we are headed with Obama as president.
Ugh...what's so bad about Obama? Freedom of Choice? Maybe for a little while. Anarchy isn't some big party where everyone can do what they want and the whole country had a great time. Are you forgetting about the terrible side of human beings? Without all these laws, someone could come and slaughter you and your family. And who can you call? No one. Either run or fight. You'll be thrown out into a lawless wasteland filed with looting, violence, and countless other terrors.
Nice life, huh?
Render Unto Caesar
Laws are created, for the most part, to help us and keep us from doing stupid things. Such as no driving while under the influence, that was created to help keep you and other people safe, if you were drinking that is.
Under anarchy there is no government, no order, no rules, and no laws. Humans will revert to their fallible nature and do anything to survive, morals will break down and everyone will die.
Anarchy is not good under any circumstances.
Woo.
At 8/5/09 05:34 PM, Col-Sandchez wrote: Laws are created, for the most part, to help us and keep us from doing stupid things. Such as no driving while under the influence, that was created to help keep you and other people safe, if you were drinking that is.
Under anarchy there is no government, no order, no rules, and no laws. Humans will revert to their fallible nature and do anything to survive, morals will break down and everyone will die.
Anarchy is not good under any circumstances.
Unless of course, humans just decide to be..you know? Civil. Of course, it only takes one person who decides to be uncivil in an anarchist state, and then it's all over. Anarchy, like many failed governments looks great on paper, but human nature just doesn't allow.
At 8/5/09 04:40 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: because anarchy doesn't work.
"As the old saying goes...what was it again?"
Anarchy is a system of having no-system, thereby being against itself.
The ideals behind Anarchy are the main importance. Total freedom. Free to do what you want, so long as it does not harm one of you fellow human beings.
An actual implementation of Anarchy would be good at first. But eventually, there will be a race between those who would want power. A race to get the biggest guns. Those who get the biggest guns will rule. This is similar to the fundamental flaw in Communism, whereby one has to rise to power to implement a true Communist society, then relinquish the power that this person worked so hard to earn. Humans love their power, and will never give it up.... What's the one thing you can give to somebody who has all the power in the world? More power.
Anarchy is a personal choice. Not something for the political spectrum. Live your life the way you want. You don't need the Government (or non-government) to give you the go ahead.
At 8/5/09 12:02 PM, ShnizZle wrote: Yes i know this idea is "far out there" but in my opinion this is better than where we are headed with Obama as president.
And having McCain, Nader, or any other person in office would make a difference? Presidents, as the many years go by here in the U.S., become slaves to the corporations more and more. Another thing is that the role of President is not this almighty powerful god position that can be used make the country better, as everyone seems to make it out to be. You need to be more worried about your local governments and your representatives, and ask your self, "Are they doing a good job representing me and my direct locales interests?" All the president really does is sign the papers that your representatives pass on to him. Sure he's involved in the process, but he is, at the very core, one man (or woman should that ever come to pass).
At 8/5/09 12:54 PM, K-RadPie wrote: Somalia. I mean, just look at how happy they are.
What a coincidence. I was just looking up at the most corrupt countries in the world and theirs happens to be the most corrupt.
You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock
At 8/6/09 02:56 PM, Ericho wrote:At 8/5/09 12:54 PM, K-RadPie wrote: Somalia. I mean, just look at how happy they are.What a coincidence. I was just looking up at the most corrupt countries in the world and theirs happens to be the most corrupt.
I don't understand how that can be - in order for there to be corruption, there has to be a government or some sort of governing body that can be corrupted, neither of which Somalia has.
Fancy Signature
At 8/6/09 03:33 PM, Tancrisism wrote:At 8/6/09 02:56 PM, Ericho wrote:I don't understand how that can be - in order for there to be corruption, there has to be a government or some sort of governing body that can be corrupted, neither of which Somalia has.At 8/5/09 12:54 PM, K-RadPie wrote: Somalia. I mean, just look at how happy they are.What a coincidence. I was just looking up at the most corrupt countries in the world and theirs happens to be the most corrupt.
There is an official government in Somolia, it just has no power really. So while technically there is a government, the tribes and warlords still control the country.
But no matter what, unless we live in a perfect utopia, if there is an anarchy some form of rule will come out of it. Especially if you get outside of just a small, local area.
We already live in something of an anarchy.
Example: The police (incompetent pudsniffers that they are) are always looking to write someone up for parking in the wrong area or going double the speed limit; but who/what is to write them up for traveling 50 mph down a 30 mph lane and parking in a handicapped area just so they can gorge themselves on all the free donuts and coffee their already bulging stomachs can handle?
In other words: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, goddammit?!
Anarchy is the ideal form of government, in that we shouldn't need a government. But then you get to the whole "People=Shit" problem, and you need to have someone there to make sure we don't wipe ourselves out as a species.
At 8/6/09 03:40 PM, ReiperX wrote: There is an official government in Somolia, it just has no power really. So while technically there is a government, the tribes and warlords still control the country.
But no matter what, unless we live in a perfect utopia, if there is an anarchy some form of rule will come out of it. Especially if you get outside of just a small, local area.
I'm thinking that by "corruption" they might mean the amount of crimes or homicides/suicides per capita although ReiperX's comment works too.
You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock
What happened to the thread between me and poxpower ? I said i had to leave for a month, I've looked through the threads for hours but i can't find it.
Anyway. I need to make some points, not on anarchy, but on Somalia.
The TFG is so weak because too few people in Somalia recognize it's authority. A government needs BOTH weapons of coercion (Which the TFG gets from the US and the UN) and it also needs some support base. You need a support base because governments cannot maintain themselfs on force alone.
For instance, if 80% of Americans stopped paying their taxes, refusing to recognize the authority of the Federal Government. Not only would the government run huge deficits, but it would be forced to pay the military and the police to throw people into prisons which is equally expensive. If the 80% of americans persisted, there would be a guerilla war in which state armies would have to command American soldiers to attack their own citizens and loot them in order to pay for their own salaries.
governments can't maintain themselfs on ideology alone either, if government had no power to enforce it's taxes and it's laws, government would be voluntary. (Which would essentially be anarchy) Cascading secession of tax evaders would undercut the Government structure.
In the Case of Somalia, prior to 1991 you had a Dictator comparable to Mugabe, with all the elements of an african kleptocracy. Africans in general are distrusting of European style democracy as it is, combine that with the distrust of highly oppressive government in general. The mentality of the Somalis is similar in this respect to that of the early Americans; (Except the Americans ideas were influenced more by classical liberalism and the enlightenment and less by a Brutal Dictatorship)
of course the TFG is by no means a constitutional convention, and once you understand the way that the Somalis look at government, you can understand why they would turn to support islamic extremists in an effort to get rid of the government. This is somewhat similar to the Cold War and the Taliban
Between 1991 and 2000, when Somalia was in TOTAL "anarchy" (In the more right wing sense of the word) As far as i can see there wasn't a problem of Islamic Extremism. The Somalis would have had little reason to 'turn' to islamic extremism.
If you aren't an anarchist then the notion that the Somalians should establish their own government on their own terms should seem acceptable; after all, The US did the same.
But anarchy in itself is a meaningless term. To some people Anarchy means the abolition of private property, to other people it means the abolition of all heiarchy, to other people Anarchy means throwing stones and bombs through windows, and to other people Anarchy means a lack of a state.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
The way we live disgusts me, and I rather live a more bohemian life style.
Away from the greed and hate.
But Anarchy as a government type is most likely going to end up as a Dictatorship,
as the strongest usually take control.
"Madness you say! Do you fear me? Are you afraid of what I might do, what I might say?
What a fascinating reaction. Don't you find it somewhat encumbering?"
At 8/8/09 09:20 PM, DEATHisIMMINENT wrote: The way we live disgusts me, and I rather live a more bohemian life style.
Away from the greed and hate.
But Anarchy as a government type is most likely going to end up as a Dictatorship,
as the strongest usually take control.
If people SERIOUSLY reject the authority of Government, establishing a government is utterly impossible.
Now if an existing government simply disapears somehow, but the majority of people still believe in the authority of the government, then a new government may appear.
Now it IS possible for some other group to obliterate the people within a defined geographic area that is no longer occupied by a state with the use of military arms and weaponry. For instance, if the US government were to disapear, and soon after (for some odd reason) israel decided to nuke us.
However, Establishing a government requires an at least partially loyal Tax-Base. If you cannot get people to believe that you are a legitimate government, it means you have to PAY PEOPLE to forcibly extract taxes from a group of people. This means that the taxes collected needs to offset the costs of paying the police and military to run the risk of getting attacked or killed by guerrilla bands supported by the majority of the people. Since the majority are opposed to the government, they would probably support the Guerrillas. You also need to collect additional taxes to maintain the government itself.
If you think about the costs of maintaining order and control in foreign countries, iraq for instance. Imagine if the US government tried to maintain a government in iraq using only tax dollars collected from the Iraqis. It would need 500 billion dollars a year in tax money.
Currently, most cases of 'anarchy' have occurred in instances where people did NOT reject the authority of government in GENERAL. The only reason governments were overthrown was to overthrow the leaders. If a dictator was overthrown it was not because people believed that a stateless society was better, they did it because they thought that the present dictator was unbearable and worth overthrowing.
When the Bolsheviks overthrew the Romanovs, they set about exterminating all other groups, including the Russian Anarchists. The people, not all of whom were actively participating Bolsheviks, supported the Bolsheviks because THEY THEMSELFS projected authority onto them. They regarded them as legitimate and that is the only way the Bolsheviks managed to maintain authority.
In cases where the majority of people REJECT the authority of a government and cease projecting any authority onto them, for instance, in the dissolution of the USSR, you find that the government is virtually powerless to stop them.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
However, Establishing a government requires an at least partially loyal Tax-Base. If you cannot get people to believe that you are a legitimate government, it means you have to PAY PEOPLE to forcibly extract taxes from a group of people. This means that the taxes collected needs to offset the costs of paying the police and military to run the risk of getting attacked or killed by guerrilla bands supported by the majority of the people. Since the majority are opposed to the government, they would probably support the Guerrillas. You also need to collect additional taxes to maintain the government itself.
but in anarchy existed money would be worthless a government would still form because people would give authority to someone to get safety in return. or would for a group for religion or because of their ideals people can fight to the death for this things usualy better than for money. this creates a lot of small groups who would fight until one or two become large and creats a goverment currency ect.
Sry if i say sumthin thats already been said but i didnt feel like reading
Chaos = Freedom
so therefor true anarchy = freedom
anarchy = some freedom but eventual government control
it would be nice if Anarchy would work out... but there's just one problem... People
People are fucking dumb, they sit back and relax and let someone tell them what to do. out of fear, and laziness... we value a stupid lil piece of paper more than our lives, so much so we work for it for most of our lives never being able to be free from moneys grip, just to live comfortable to die before we reach the indignity of not being able to reach the toilet before shitting yourself...
chaos is the only true freedom, in chaos EVERYTHING is fair... but since true chaos will never be achieved we have to deal with the shitty system we've got until we fight for a better one, we the people have the right to over throw our government if we dont like it, they try to take guns away from us so when they try a complete take over scheme we can barely fight back
i myself am an anarchist, anarchy... true anarchy is a chaotic beautifully violent thing
but since people dont want to provide there own protection and manage there own lives we have government, and when the government stops serving the people thats when things get fucked up, the government is supposed to be a servant of the people, we are not a servant to the government or at least we shouldnt be, the government was created for protection, not to start wars, not to finish wars, not to regulate and control us, but pure and simple just for protection, we dont need war, war just causes death, war is used to control the population limit, war is used to get money... its all just an ugly system of death and profit and the boys that start the fight, never fight it themselves they send the poor, the desperate, the weak minded, and the insane(such as myself)
i dont think im insane but alot of other people do
if we were a free country then you should be able to sit in your home and not get arrested so long as your not hurting anybody regardless of what the hell your doing
but instead, theres a bullshit war on drugs, and well, there will always be war on terrorism cuz some asshole doesnt like another asshole...
until everybody learns to live peacefully among each other there will always be war and a bullshit lying government system
At 8/12/09 01:23 PM, D3f4u17 wrote: since people dont want to provide there own protection and manage there own lives we have government
So I assume theres not much in the way of infrastructure in this "true anarchy."
And, assuming you want to live, being forced by circumstance to provide your own protection doesn't sound all that liberating. It sounds tedious and distracting really.
Put your copy of fight club away, and don't read it ever again.
People are stupid. Things really aren't THAT bad.
Fucking whiney pussies.
Americans are too stupid for an Anarchy...Anarchy is based on self control and it's impossible for a nation tha from 50 years attack other nations without a motive (ok money is the motive)
At 8/12/09 02:45 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:At 8/12/09 01:23 PM, D3f4u17 wrote: since people dont want to provide there own protection and manage there own lives we have governmentSo I assume theres not much in the way of infrastructure in this "true anarchy."
And, assuming you want to live, being forced by circumstance to provide your own protection doesn't sound all that liberating. It sounds tedious and distracting really.
Put your copy of fight club away, and don't read it ever again
well, yeah it can be tedious and there is no structure to chaos but it is absolute freedom... but your effort and will to survive is the price
and i've never read that book. is it any good? http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/post/quote /19797382#
At 8/13/09 08:11 AM, Korak93 wrote: Everyone's too stupid for an Anarchy...
Corrected.
"As the old saying goes...what was it again?"
At 8/13/09 01:33 PM, D3f4u17 wrote: well, yeah it can be tedious and there is no structure to chaos but it is absolute freedom... but your effort and will to survive is the price
If you're obligated to follow a course of action to fulfill any particular need (like personal safety), then you don't have absolute freedom.
and i've never read that book. is it any good?
It's very good. Just read it with the fact in mind that it's satire.
