quote:

Originally posted by Verona^My oh you are funny... in an ararchist society you would have police forces. LOL Anarchy means no government. If you had no government, there would be no police forces. Anarchy can not exist, society can not govern itself, cept maybe local tribes of under 100 people or so.

You can obviously read and write! That's great! *clap clap*

Now go read Bakunin, the founding father. Anarchy is order without control! you would have a police force governed and operated by society itself but no bigger than local forces. You don't need a government to have a protective force.
This was one of the major discussions with the founding fathers!

Remember folks! read!

Stops you from embaressing yourselves!

___________________
Courageous, untroubled, mocking and violent; that is what Wisdom wants us to be. Wisdom is a woman, and loves only a warrior.
--Friedrich Nietzsche

Oh and by the way, I'm not in favour of Anarchy!

Just can't undrestand why people are so misled on this whole issue!

___________________
Courageous, untroubled, mocking and violent; that is what Wisdom wants us to be. Wisdom is a woman, and loves only a warrior.
--Friedrich Nietzsche

quote:

Originally posted by Nadi The other flaw with anarchism even in the communistic/marxist terms is that, when you have no goverment people will do as they please when they please. In other words, people will be able to rob, steal, kill, and the only punishment they would recive would be street justice. And while I hate authority sometimes, I sure as hell don't want to live in a world, were people can do whatever they want, because we as humans just can't handle that. I mean people could go rob us, kill us, steal from us, it's really quite scary.

Well, this was my whole point about the realistic factor of outright Anarchy.

Anarchy assumes that people are capable of being egalatarian enough to realise that killing others, stealing others things, and so forth isn't conducive to an orderly society.

Obviously, at this point in time, yes, a lack of government *would* cause immediate chaos and Anarchy would last, as was stated above, about .00000001 of a second before a dictator, or several localized dictators stepped up to take control.

As I said earlier, to have Anarchy achieved you have to have a socially evolved person who's willing to do things for the good of society on a regular basis, and who isn't going to do something just because he/she can without considering the consequences to other people.

I have faith in the *possibility* of such, because humans are almost infinitely malleable, given a long enough time line they can be shaped into almost anything, thus, if you can start down the path, and stay on it, the socially evolved person I'm talking about *can* exist.

Because of this I'm for teaching egalatarian values in schools, a build toward socialism, followed by a build toward Communism, and finally, you'll have Anarchy.

This is all on a long, long, long timeline though, and I certainly don't even expect to see anything approaching global socialism in my lifetime.

Anarchy is just another ideal that states humans are capable of more than they are currently. For that reason, I almost equate a belief in Anarchy/Communism to a sort of religion that has faith in the material world, and what humans are capable of here.

What can I say? I'm an optimist in that regard because I know that *I* do things not so much because of the laws concerning them, but because I legitimately believe that killing others, taking their things, or so on are things that I wouldn't like to have done to me, thus, out of respect for that, I don't do it to anyone else; and if I can do it, than everyone else could as well IMHO, since I'm not particularly special or gifted.

thank you cortex for answering questions with correctly spelled words and coherent discourse|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

quote:

but if you take into account vegatorian factor or post necromedial decreses in the rate of factorial alberisms then you will see the putronmy of the whole situation is kept at a satisfiable level.

EXACTLY!!!!

___________________
"Oh NO! It seems the world has been infected by a disease called shitty music.
We've had innocculations for some time now but the populace keeps refusing it.
You don't want it? Fine. Give me all the vaccine and a needle and I'll fucking overdose.
It'll be the best day of my life."

quote:

Originally posted by DuMonde TrAnCeR but if you take into account vegatorian factor or post necromedial decreses in the rate of factorial alberisms then you will see the putronmy of the whole situation is kept at a satisfiable level.

Right um... Huh?

___________________
Check My Music

hrmm....illusion had some good points, but i think he was a little to excited, but all in all, he's right...this topic is pretty deep to be bringing up on a forum, if you guys want this question answered, go join a political science class or an international relations class...but my thoughts on the subject:Globaly speaking, we ARE living in a state of anarchy, and have always been. why? because even though any state or nation can exert its own powers within its borders(soveriegnty), There is no ONE authority that all other authorities abide by, meaning there is no world-government, which in my belief is what the UN is trying to establish, by using international organisations like the europian union and international laws to slowly diminish and erode state soveriegnty. But anyways, if nobody understood what i said its alright its to much for me to really take the time and try to put it all down here in this one post & i dont think i can explain it half as good as it comes up into my head, but im sure any of you that have read any political science book know what the hell im talking about...but its time to eat so ........ uhh ya.... peace.

-f

quote:

Originally posted by ftnb but my thoughts on the subject:Globaly speaking, we ARE living in a state of anarchy, and have always been.

Globally speaking is all well and good, but it doesn't really do much for those of us who aren't in high offices in government.

Additionally, I'd have to take exception to the notion that global politics is even anarchic at all, all you have is the darwinian principal of the "strong rule", which really has nothing to do with Anarchy, which is based on egalatarian and equal power principals. Our current state of affairs is much closer to global despotism, with the strongest countries not being accountable, or rebukable for their actions.

When you talk Anarchy I think you have to talk on an intimate, "normal person" scale. Anarchy is supposed to be an egalatarian "proletarian" principal, and as such trying to use it in a general, globalised scale is an error IMHO.

My intro/political science book states that Anarchy is: an abscence of government, emphasized by realism in explaining the existence of any overarching governing power in international politics. So, if we go by my political science books definition, then, i think im right!! it is a GLOBAL more than individual! ... (im still waiting to hear what arbiter has to say about all this) ... anyways, im out, time to go eat some more breyers ice-cream.

peace,

-t

quote:

Originally posted by ftnb (im still waiting to hear what arbiter has to say about all this)

The problem with anarchy as I see it is that, like pure democracy or pure communism, it relies too greatly on the people to know what's best for themselves. In general, without a governing body of some kind that can make decisions and implement them, developing a consensus among the people in order to build and maintain social institutions would be difficult, to say the least.

Further complicating matters would be human nature. Maintaining an anarchy would be almost impossible, because without a government, there would be no organization capable of controlling the human tendency to form groups with similar interests which endeavor to have their interests put forward by the society. Without a powerful organization, which would be a de facto government, there would be no one to stop such an organization from simply seizing power.

In the end, I just don't believe mainstream society is capable of managing itself. At some point in the distant future, this could concievably change, but at this point I think anarchy would end up more like the cynic's perception of it than the idealist's.

Finally, yes, to a certain extent we have international Anarchy. Anarchy can exist on a number of different levels. I agree with CortexBomb in that it's the cynic's Anarchy - rule by the strong, not the idealist's Anarchy.

Cheers,

Arbiter

as ftnb states, anarchy is the abscence of government.
nothing to do with chaos, random killings, or chickens with their heads cut off. it is just that, no government existence that establishes some kind of a hierarchy system that creates classes, and aristocracy and so on. and leads into socialism where the people exist with each other through a "social contract". a kind of a mutual admiration society obeying the golden rule.
we humans haven't evolved that far yet.

global anarchy?
how do you think the u.s. was able to attain the position it holds now? since our "independence", european nations have been at war with each other constantly over everything. (anarchy in this sense means chaos.) fighting among themselves not paying any mind to what the colonists were doing over here. but it shouldn't last too much longer. it never does. before the u.s. came along it was the brits, before them the hollanders, spaniards, so on so forth... history repeats itself. could be australia, south america, the euro backed euros?? so those of you america bashers don't worry, i've heard that we will be on the way down. don't know when yet. :P

off topic - how boring would life be if there was global peace? how would we live?? what kind of programs would be on tv? any violence? what about sports?