Share something pointless about your life!

[magaginho]

That's a big ignorance from your part, read my posts from above again please.

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?

[Obnoxious]

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.

[magaginho]

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.

Reason why I'm telling you that history itself shows you the clear evidence of how bad the road for anarchy is.

[AMFD]

How you view "freedom" differently from other people has little effect on real-world applications.

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 ".

[magaginho]

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 ".

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.

[Obnoxious]

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.

[magaginho]

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.

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.

[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.