Share something pointless about your life!

[AMFD]

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.

The view of the majority doesn't make it right, but the same thing can be said if it was the other way around.

[Mercy]

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.

I didn't say they'd kill each other. But I won't claim that isn't a possibility. You're pretending that society isn't inherently violent. You do realize that there are many forms of violence, right? Physical violence isn't the only one that matters, and other forms of violence are often times the cause or justification behind physical violence. A small town might work for your example. However, there is a very big difference between a small town and the world. The world is made up of different religions, cultures, etc. that many are still killing each other over.

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.

Yes. Read my above paragraph.

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!

Why are you comparing [small] communities that have hundreds or thousands of years upon which to establish themselves to one of the largest countries in the world who has had less than 3 centuries upon which to establish itself?

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.

I could go in so many directions with this.
What stops so-called "justice" from going too far? (Witch hunts)
What about the other things governments provide? I assume you are aware that there is more to government than just the justice system.

As I said in my previous post to you; people across the world treat each other like garbage for the dumbest and most petty of reasons. That's not going to change if a world-"government" of "anarchy" were to be declared. Pretending that there are not factions that would, in fact, continue (because they're already doing it - or trying to do it) killing each other. Look at the middle-east and Africa for crying out loud.

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 ".

Yes, and my point is that hopes and dreams, as nice as they are/can be, are irrelevant.

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.

Implying that the word doesn't cover a variety of ideas and approaches? In fact, this whole argument is the very first time I've seen "anarchy" as a term used to describe what is actually "utopia". As far as I know, they are not the same thing.

[Obnoxious]

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.

Not at all. It just makes him rational and mature enough to not try to live anarchy on his own just for the sake of saying he's doing it. Anarchy is, after all, a societal model, not an individualized aim.

[AMFD]

Yes, and my point is that hopes and dreams, as nice as they are/can be, are irrelevant.

I agree :)

[magaginho]

Not at all. It just makes him rational and mature enough to not try to live anarchy on his own just for the sake of saying he's doing it. Anarchy is, after all, a societal model, not an individualized aim.

Maturity doesn't come from a fantasy world that you're capable of dreaming with. Maturity lands and hits when you're capable to realize that things cannot be placed into action thanks to the multiple factors involved in the equation and through your life experience. Many radical leaders were also extremely rational; So rational that they managed to cause so many harm to others.

Remember how many were called as lunatics for being rational? Because I do. Remember how many died because of that? I sure do.

Spoiler: Show

a state of society without government or law.
2.
political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control:
The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.
3.
anarchism (def 1).
4.
lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination:
the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.
5.
confusion and disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

Every single definition of anarchy shows the same thing as well.

[Obnoxious]

Maturity doesn't come from a fantasy world that you're capable of dreaming with. Maturity lands and hits when you're capable to realize that things cannot be placed into action thanks to the multiple factors involved in the equation and through your life experience. Many radical leaders were also extremely rational; So rational that they managed to cause so many harm to others.

Remember how many were called as lunatics for being rational? Because I do. Remember how many died because of that? I sure do.

I have no clue why you're twisting what I said and pulling it in completely unrelated directions to anything I might have replied to.
Maybe I need alcohol first.

[magaginho]

why you're twisting

In the same way that anarchy is being twisted by stating that it can be good. What happens when every stuff starts to go wrong?
Who applies justice and who's the person that defines justice? How does that work at the end of the day?
And the tricky question; How can you state that people will be mature into a point that they will 'cause no harm under any aspect? That's where my lunatics point kicks in: It takes just one person to incite chaos and spread blood everywhere. Then others will follow the example and without rules? There ain't no stopping. It just turns the whole situation into a slaughter under multiple ways; economical, physical and territorial.

[Obnoxious]

In the same way that anarchy is being twisted by stating that it can be good. What happens when every stuff starts to go wrong?
Who applies justice and who's the person that defines justice? How does that work at the end of the day?
And the tricky question; How can you state that people will be mature into a point that they will 'cause no harm under any aspect? That's where my lunatics point kicks in: It takes just one to incite chaos and spread blood everywhere.

What happens is I don't give a ****. For the third, unnecessary time, I have no interest in discussing anarchy, I'm just pointing out you're failing to argue against it if you misrepresent what it stands for.

[Mercy]

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.

I was. Then someone decided that they wanted to leave out the fact that anarchy does, in fact, handle wrong-doings in a certain way. Anarchy and a utopia are not the same thing because a utopia assumes that wrong-doings do not happen. In anarchy, they do, and that is when the system breaks down into chaos, which is why anarchy is represented in a specific way that most people do respresent it in - horrible. In a utopia, there isn't a justice system, because it isn't needed. In anarchy, there isn't a justice system because it's government, and anarchy is the lack of government and everything that it includes and entails. Which means that if guy A kills guy B because guy B is cheating with guy A's wife, that's OK. And if someone decides it's not OK, then they can apply whatever "justice" they choose to guy A, and that's OK too, because to apply any rules on what guy C is allowed or not allowed to do to guy A would be to create a justice system of a sort, which cannot be applied because that is in itself government.

[Obnoxious]

I was. Then someone decided that they wanted to leave out the fact that anarchy does, in fact, handle wrong-doings in a certain way. Anarchy and a utopia are not the same thing because a utopia assumes that wrong-doings do not happen. In anarchy, they do, and that is when the system breaks down into chaos, which is why anarchy is represented in a specific way that most people do respresent it in - horrible. In a utopia, there isn't a justice system, because it isn't needed. In anarchy, there isn't a justice system because it's government, and anarchy is the lack of government and everything that it includes and entails. Which means that if guy A kills guy B because guy B is cheating with guy A's wife, that's OK. And if someone decides it's not OK, then they can apply whatever "justice" they choose to guy A, and that's OK too, because to apply any rules on what guy C is allowed or not allowed to do to guy A would be to create a justice system of a sort, which cannot be applied because that is in itself government.

Actually, you're mistaken. Real anarchy is an utopia, exactly because of what you say, because wrong-doings simply wouldn't happen. It's in the essence of "doing the right thing because you understand that's the best." If wrong-doings happened, it already wouldn't be an anarchy in the first place.

[Hugolich]

Well ****, these 2 pages I've read you guys said rational so many times, and it didn't sound right, I thought it was a goddamn ration (you know, for dogs lol) this was its first hit:

then I went to images tab, and what do you know, it shows what you actually want to say here, which is someone thinking :D.. Fun google... God I'm bored

[adailnaruto]

Why are you guys even talking politics in a private wow server ?

[Beanlord]

Why are you guys even talking politics in a private wow server ?

Why do people do whatever, wherever?

[magaginho]

Why are you guys even talking politics in a private wow server ?

In the same way that others come here to talk about consoles or League of Legends? At least people are discussing some interesting stuff instead of that crap. I rather waste my time here than roam around the other threads and see the typical dick measuring between the same old *****s.

[Mercy]

Actually, you're mistaken. Real anarchy is an utopia, exactly because of what you say, because wrong-doings simply wouldn't happen. It's in the essence of "doing the right thing because you understand that's the best." If wrong-doings happened, it already wouldn't be an anarchy in the first place.

Actually, you're mistaken, for a second time. Anarchy is the lack of government, leadership, organization, etc. Do you know what the actual definition of "government" is? I'm seriously asking this because it's rather clear that you don't understand what the definition of anarchy is.

I'll break it down to make it easier to understand, I guess.

gov·ern·ment
ˈɡəvər(n)mənt/
noun
noun: government; plural noun: governments
1.
the governing body of a nation, state, or community.


"governing"
Means "to be governed", right? So then, what does "govern" mean?


gov·ern
ˈɡəvərn/
verb
verb: govern; 3rd person present: governs; past tense: governed; past participle: governed; gerund or present participle: governing
1.
- conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).
"he was incapable of governing the country"
synonyms: rule, preside over, reign over, control, be in charge of, command, lead, dominate; More
- control, influence, or regulate (a person, action, or course of events).
"the future of Jamaica will be governed by geography, not history"
synonyms: determine, decide, control, regulate, direct, rule, dictate, shape; More
- conduct oneself, especially with regard to controlling one's emotions.
"men would give in to passion and become unable to govern themselves"
- serve to decide (a legal case).


Anarchy = the lack of government, leardership, organization.
Government being the person or group of people that govern a larger group of people, yes?
Govern means, as displayed above, to apply any form of control, influence, regulation or system of any kind.
This is where people confuse "anarchy" with "utopia".

Utopia is where people do what is in the best interest of the people around them, and they don't need to be told to because they already know what they should do. Because there's a regulation of it. There is a system. Utopia, in itself, is a government. Which automatically means that it is NOT anarchy.

Anarchy is where people go and do whatever the hell they want because there is no system, regulation or directions that indicate what they should or should not do. You can hope that people generally know what they should or should not do, but that is only a hope and irrelevant because people are not, by default, forgiving and kind creatures - but as stated, irrelevant because there are no governing (see the term I used here?) rules, guidelines or systems to indicate what a person should or should not do. Just like there isn't any such system to indicate what is right or wrong, what other people should think about when thinking of what someone did is right or wrong, or if there should or should not be any punishment applied if when someone decides that someone else did something wrong. The moment you try to apply any sort of method, regulation, system, directions, etc., you are GOVERNING. Which is against what anarchy stands for.

Anarchy is an oxymoron. It is a rule that states that there are no rules, which means if it is to follow its own rule, then it cannot exist because there are no rules.
The fact that there are people trying to argue for it in the first place is absurd, much less people trying to tell me that I'm "misrepresenting it". Honestly, I'd be more inclined to believe that this was a language barrier issue, and the meaning of the words were lost in translation or something, than I am to believe that someone who doesn't natively speak English when they try to tell me I don't understand what the word "anarchy" means, or what its underlying greek and latin derivatives are.

People who are using it to represent a "new world order" sort of thing are being misleading at best.