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.
-
Member
-
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.
-
Member
The view of the majority doesn't make it right, but the same thing can be said if it was the other way around.
-
Field Medic Moderator
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.
Yes. Read my above paragraph.
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 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.
Yes, and my point is that hopes and dreams, as nice as they are/can be, are irrelevant.
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.
-
Moderator
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.
-
Member
I agree :)
Quote
