No system of government or non-government is perfect. Everything eventually leads to an oligarchy, such is human nature.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-15 3:10
But as far as a concept goes, anarchy works better.
Because without government and law enforcement, you still have a shit ton of murders and rapes and so on, but you have more individual freedoms, and nobody can tell you what to do. Cough cough drugs, squatting, etc.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-15 3:36
>>3
Well some libertarians and most constitutionalists support individual freedoms and personal liberties. With a proper restraint on government and keeping that government small.
I'd say a government is a necessary evil in keeping law and order, but must be kept small and chained down so as not to intrude on daily life.
As it was once said "without law, there can be no freedom".
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-15 4:11
In order for anarchy to work, there would need to be some method to enforce it. Otherwise someone would just gain enough power to rule, likely through either force or charisma. And there will always be people who'd rather follow a leader than be responsible for their own damned selves.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-15 4:17
It must be said that there is no consensual government, people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to live under a government, or under no government. This would be true anarchy. If you don't want to be able to choose to do anything, then you should choose to live under a government, if you don't, then you shouldn't have to. No one has this option, however.
Of course they do. There's plenty of people who decide that the government be damned, they'll just do whatever the hell they want. Government will often try to prevent such infractions via force (legal, military, whatever), but that's intrinsically no different than some hothead in an anarchy trying the same thing. People will do things to piss off other people, that's human nature.
Only difference is the scale of the countermeasures used. And that is often dependent on how many followers any given leader has, anarchy or not.
>>7
I still can't break the law without being forced into a jail.
amirite?
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-15 7:21
Constitutional monarchy which evolves into a democracy over time as the economy improves. >>1 >>5
>there would need to be some method to enforce it.
Polyopoly over force = endemic warfare, anarchy doesn't even work in theory. >>2
Everything is a mix of tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. Different political, economic and social systems affect the distribution of power. >>3 >>4
What if people want institutions to organise sophisticated activities involving 1000s of people? Obviously you need some kind of state to cater for this, in other words democracy, or if the people are too stupid constitutional monarchy. >>6 >>7 >>9
Once you've founded anarchtopia on an uninhabited patch of earth how do you defend yourself from somalian pirates? >>8
You can be constitutional monarch.
>>10 What if people want institutions to organise[sic] sophisticated activities involving 1000s of people?
There are grass-roots efforts and websites all over Internet land and probably also in a local phone book.
Obviously you need some kind of state to cater for this, in other words democracy, or if the people are too stupid constitutional monarchy.
Right. Which is why I would take small government over no government anyday. The problem is, is how does one go about in keeping government chained down and small?
>>10 >>8 here. That's all I ask. And I expect I could build a society stable enough to allow me to step down in 20 years, tops.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-15 18:57
>>9
Because there's a 100% correlation between committing a crime and being punished, amirite?
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-16 6:32
>>11
>There are grass-roots efforts and websites all over Internet land and probably also in a local phone book.
So how are decisions made?
>how does one go about in keeping government chained down and small?
You can't beyond changing political culture for reasons >>2 mentioned. I generally agree with the "road to serfdom" and all that but the post-war socialism fad in the 50s through to the 70s ran out of steam despite major social changes in it's favor, the equilibrium society reached was nowhere near totalitarian, you would need some pretty extreme conditions in order for Hayek's predictions to come true. >>12
Make sure the army swears loyalty to you and keep a cabal of generals and shit so if one decides to overthrow an elected government it doesn't cause a shitstorm.
Individuals make their own decisions. People are bound together by a common reason. The tea party protests are a good example of this.
I agree with you on your other points and >>2 's as well. The thing is, the political climate and culture is going to have to have a drastic change in order to take government back to either a sane size or its constitutional size. I don't know if this was attempted in history before; the citizens attempting to limit the size of their expanding corrupting government, and became successful in doing so.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-16 11:38
>>15
>Individuals make their own decisions.
And how do they reach a consensus? What if the people are unreasonable savages like those described in a particular thread here about Africa? I know of 2 moderately efficient solutions, democracy and constitutional monarchy respectively.
"It may seem strange to some man that has not well weighed these things that Nature should thus dissociate and render men apt to invade and destroy one another: and he may therefore, not trusting to this inference, made from the passions, desire perhaps to have the same confirmed by experience. Let him therefore consider with himself: when taking a journey, he arms himself and seeks to go well accompanied; when going to sleep, he locks his doors; when even in his house he locks his chests; and this when he knows there be laws and public officers, armed, to revenge all injuries shall be done him; what opinion he has of his fellow subjects, when he rides armed; of his fellow citizens, when he locks his doors; and of his children, and servants, when he locks his chests. Does he not there as much accuse mankind by his actions as I do by my words? But neither of us accuse man's nature in it. The desires, and other passions of man, are in themselves no sin. No more are the actions that proceed from those passions till they know a law that forbids them; which till laws be made they cannot know, nor can any law be made till they have agreed upon the person that shall make it."
There's also a quote I don't think is in there that I'll just throw in aswell.
"Not believing in force is the same as not believing in gravitation."
Hobbes
>political climate and culture
This composes the vast sum of factors which affect the political system in place, you might actually do better trying to achieve a more libertarian government by starting a succesful chain of career oriented (rather than the apparent teenage daycare focus of state schools) cheap private schools or something.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-16 13:42
Or you could keep the democratically represented republic, but remove the geographic restraints for the federal government.
Single-issue voters then get a voice without putting their vote towards policies they don't know or care about. If the representative you gave the power of your vote to starts campaigning on shit unrelated to the reason you gave him your vote (maybe he was bribed?), then he gets his ass kicked to the curb.
>>16 What if the people are unreasonable savages like those described in a particular thread here about Africa?
That's why the Second Amendment needs to be protected at all costs. The Framers of the Constitution put that in the bill of rights to protect the rest of the bill of rights in the worst case scenario.
It also serves to protect individuals against anyone who may threaten their very life.
Those are great quotes you provided, by the way. :-)
This composes the vast sum of factors which affect the political system in place, you might actually do better trying to achieve a more libertarian government by starting a succesful chain of career oriented (rather than the apparent teenage daycare focus of state schools) cheap private schools or something.
What a great idea! I honestly wouldn't know the first thing about seeting up a business like that, nor have the know-how to be able to franchise it further. Although, the education of kids would be a great first step towards the process of a more libertarian government.
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-18 23:14
Forum: Troll Fox News. You up for it?
Name:
Anonymous2009-10-19 10:23
>>17
You seem to be describing some form of direct democracy which most governments have considered and experimented with. It could work at the local government level with referendums for major national issues in conjunction with a regular representative democracy to plug any loopholes that emerge. >>18
For my constitutional monarchy I would rather arm civilised citizens and disarm unreasonable savages, rather like the Tokugawa Shogunate allowed loyal samurai to have weapons but disarmed the peasants, this way you don't get private armies setting up their own little fiefdoms and starting civil wars. After 100 years of instability and constant war you'd feel the same way. I suppose you could have a law saying you should be allowed to have weapons unless you're a criminal.
>>20
I see where you're coming from, but that's just simply gun control. And the "unreasonable savages" will just go to underground shady locations and spots for their weapons, since they're unreasonable savages of course.
Gangs members in America absolutely love gun control laws, because they can get guns with no problem; whereas for law abiding citizens, it's much more difficult. You disarm the citizen, you give power to the criminal; there's just simply no other way around it.
Name:
Anonymous2010-09-20 16:16
>>4
Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of government.
Proudhon
"The law is an adroit mixture of customs that are beneficial to society, and could be followed even if no law existed, and others that are of advantage to a ruling minority, but harmful to the masses of men, and can be enforced on them only by terror."
Peter Kropotkin
Name:
Anonymous2010-09-21 13:27
Anarchy is the most unstable of societal systems. It collapses into a government at the merest touch. --Larry Niven
Name:
Anonymous2010-09-21 20:19
>>23
Anarchy seems to be all about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You can't have anarchy without throwing out "customs that are beneficial to society".
Name:
Anonymous2010-10-03 6:13
There are 2 kinds of anarchy, utopian anarchy and incomplete anarchy. You'd think the utopian anarchy is the better of the two but you'd be wrong, utopia is impossible, this anarchy is a fantasy, however anarchy can exist as more of a general ideal that the state is evil, even if it is a necessary evil. This is better but it's still wrong, necessary evils are good because you judge what is good by an action's effects, choosing a lesser evil over a greater evil reduces evil and is thus good.
Name:
Anonymous2010-10-07 10:38
>>1
Anarchy has never worked. Every well-spirited intent to establish it is resolved with the creation of a government.
There are lots of communities in africa (probably elsewhere as well) that live essentially in anarchy. I say essentially because they don't consider themselves anarchists because that is their default lifestyle. My understanding of the situation is that there is no social order founded on coercion by formal institutions but there is rather one maintained by the less concrete cultural tendencies of the community, which, in my opinion is an impressive feat of communication. Certainly evidence supporting the possibility of anarchy, and in my opinion it sounds, to say the least, nice. That said, whether or not the same systems could exist on a large level - say in a populolation the size of New York city- is a different question, to which I unfortunately feel inclined to answer in the negative should i ever be asked.
Many people fail to understand that Anarchy is not a system to be established or staved off, it simply is.
You, today, from whichever corner of this globe you access this from, live in an Anarchy.
You have been fooled into thinking otherwise, indoctrinated in the system.
What is a crime? Is kidnapping a crime? Why not when the government does it, locking people away for decades? There really are no rules, only rulers; and rulers can behave in whichever manner they choose.
But so can you! This is anarchy, after all. The difference being, the rulers have enough power and influence to PUNISH you for for breaking their "laws".
Never forget that when something is "illegal" it does not mean that it can not mean done, it means someone with more power than you will PUNISH you for doing it, and no matter how many new "laws" they write up to describe the punishment, it does not change the source, those with true power.
Name:
:|2012-01-08 15:10
Anarchy with a VENGEANCE, that's what works better. And get your axes and viking helmets while you're at it.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-08 15:21
What happens when Mississippi starts lynching niggers again under anarchy?
Name:
Sniper2012-01-09 17:13
Laws only exist if there is a government or majority to constitute right from wrong.
In an anarchy that ceases to exist therefore rape wouldn't be "breaking" the law, since there isn't any.