That's crowd control, just so the people have a reason to believe governments are legitimate.
You can do all of that without a government through private services. You'll end up with a better service, or maybe a cheaper service. You'll choose which service you want, and not the government. I think individuals are better deciding what they want to do with their lives than a government, no? If I go to the market, I know what I want to buy better than any government.
wat. Are you saying freedom is a cancer, and we should become communists?
And governments turn corrupt because they can. Who had the incredible idea of giving the monopoly of violence to a small group of people?
Not sure how that contradicts what I said. You accepted the rules when you joined. And, unlike governments, you can leave whenever you want.
And you have a misunderstood anarchy -- it is not the lack of laws. You have the natural human rights -- the right of property, the right of freedom. You don't have the right to go killing other people.
Most if not all government laws will infringe both natural human rights somehow. I believe the rights of freedom and property comes before any laws made by any government, and as such any laws infringing both of these aren't legitimate.
-
Moderator
-
Field Medic Moderator
No. There are very distinct differences between anarchy and freedom.
Taken straight from Google;
an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē
noun
- a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
"he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil
"conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy"
- absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
Notice where it says "absolute freedom". The operative word here is ABSOLUTE. The freedoms provided by the Constitution of the United States of America (as an example) dictates that the "freedoms" of one person STOP where the freedoms of the next person BEGINS. There are reasons why things like slander are against the law. In an environment of ABSOLUTE freedom, none of this matters. I can say whatever I want, do whatever I want, against other people without any concerns or fears about the repercussions of what I've said or done to another person. There are a variety of reasons why freedoms are restricted to certain degrees - controlled, if you will - because there is a LINE that you DO NOT CROSS. A line which anarchy does not provide nor recognize. That in itself is the biggest argument against anarchy as a political ideal and that is one of the biggest reasons why it does not work. It could work in a utopia where people don't treat each other like garbage for the dumbest and most petty reasons - but that is not our world, at least not yet.
-
Banned
I'm gonna ignore everything else and just grab this because I just want to point out two things.
Do you truly know what an Anarchy is? An Anarchy isn't freedom; An Anarchy is a system where everyone reign themselves under their own terms, rules and values. Therefore, it's more than ok if I kill someone, if I steal, if I am corrupt, etc. Your freedom is null according to my eyes and the most violent or manipulative people are the ones that endure in such system. Either you become a savage or you end up dead. That's the extremist view of an anarchy and there's a reason why no country in the world follows such vision.
And now here's my second point: If you're such an anarchist why are you a moderator then? You're not only being a hypocrite to yourself but you're also going against all the principles that you're dropping here since you're forcing rules against your fellow men. So here's my question to you; Do you or do you not need laws and rules to exist in order to get a paycheck? If anarchy was to be followed in this forum, you would not get a paycheck. You would just be another one getting smacked by the violence of the so called "freedom" that you so much preach about. As you can see, laws and rules are indeed required and this is just a tiny example of the many reasons why you need rules.
This line says everything.Edited: December 22, 2016
-
Moderator
The part of anarchy that you're missing is that under a real one people are expected to "do the right thing" for the good of the community, without the need of a government limiting and ordering people around to try to regulate something as close as possible to that. It's not simply an absolute lack of laws with absolute freedom alone. It includes the expectation of people to be mature enough to understand the best for everyone is the best for the individual as well because everyone will be in the same line of thought.
-
Member
As a human being your mind decides how you view freedom. It doesn't mean you have it. If you live by the rules of civilization, you really don't have full freedom. But that can also be debatable, because everyone views " Freedom " differently.
Everything has a cause and effect. You have the freedom to kill someone, but you might end up going to jail. You have the freedom to insult any staff member, but you will be banned. Freedom comes with consequences.
-
Field Medic Moderator
Yes, this is called a utopia, and everyone knows why that's impossible.
How you view "freedom" differently from other people has little effect on real-world applications.
-
Banned
What about the fact that people already make blood paint the ground that they walk on while protesting against the government?
What about the little fact that mankind is completely known for making mistakes based on their ignorance of "what is best"?
It's historically shown that an anarchy would only lead into more consequences and without rules the mankind would only be even more ignorant. Expecting that society would be mature enough to handle the situation is something that would only happen in a perfect dream. In other words, a utopia.
-
Moderator
To argue anarchism is absolute freedom is the same to argue civil society would turn to chaos if left on it's own. That people would go out killing each other, and a government telling you killing is bad is the only thing keeping you from killing other people. I don't think that's the case.
Communities without governments existed -- an excellent example is the Medieval Iceland. They lasted for over 300 years (more than the US has existed so far), and only ended after the church invaded their lives and started dictating over them. It ended on a civil war then. To compare, it only took 80 years for the US have their first civil war. Their homicide rates were much lower than in the US today, and that was almost a thousand years ago!
I don't think the majority of society would go on killing each other just because there's no government telling you that's a bad thing. Of course, there are crazy people out there, though I do think society can organize itself to solve the problem. Lack of government does not equal lack of justice.
That's a big ignorance from your part, read my posts from above again please.
-
Banned
No, that's not ignorance. That's you dodging the bullet. I'm gonna make the question again to see how far the hipocrisy goes;
What's your role as a moderator? Why are you a moderator? Why do jobs like a moderator exist?
-
Moderator
So what that it's an utopia?
My point isn't that it's possible, but if you're going to argue anarchy, argue anarchy for what anarchy is in the full meaning.
-
Banned
Reason why I'm telling you that history itself shows you the clear evidence of how bad the road for anarchy is.
-
Member
I wasn't talking about the effects on real-world applications. I was just expressing the view of " Freedom " itself. I did use some examples, but my point was only to express the view of " Freedom ".
-
Banned
There's a reason why so many countries share the same ideals and principles. That's because they have the same POV of what "freedom" stands for.
-
Moderator
Again, I'm not arguing if anarchy is good, bad, possible, impossible, or used by dalmatians.
My only point is that if you're going to attack what anarchy stands for, attack the actual thing instead of misrepresenting it.
-
Banned
In this specific case, his whole anarchy status quo goes down the drain when he's a moderator himself. You're going against something that you defend just by having the job that you have and that takes away all the credibility that you could have.
Quote
