Discussion on Anarchy

  • 199 Replies
  • 50152 Views
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #120 on: April 30, 2007, 07:36:26 AM »

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #121 on: April 30, 2007, 07:37:47 AM »
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #122 on: April 30, 2007, 07:38:57 AM »
NIGGA
STOLE
MY
BIKE

Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #123 on: April 30, 2007, 07:41:10 AM »

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #124 on: April 30, 2007, 07:41:38 AM »
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #125 on: April 30, 2007, 07:43:46 AM »
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #126 on: April 30, 2007, 07:44:37 AM »

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #127 on: April 30, 2007, 07:45:31 AM »

Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #128 on: April 30, 2007, 07:47:25 AM »

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #129 on: April 30, 2007, 08:11:51 AM »
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65234
  • +17/-40
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #130 on: April 30, 2007, 08:21:40 AM »
Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.
Or your afraid of change. or something.
Just because you "like being ordered around" doesn't mean you have to ruin the future of the world

..and back on topic maybe

Afraid of change? I'm not afraid of change, just opposed to change that will not make the world better off.
That's not ruining the future of the world, it's understanding the future of the world.
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #131 on: April 30, 2007, 09:15:34 AM »


Some of your images really suck.

All of my images suck, I simply can't be bothered to sweat on my sack about it. What's your point?
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

_MarquisDeSade

  • 178
  • +0/-0
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #132 on: May 01, 2007, 05:50:22 AM »
Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.
Or your afraid of change. or something.
Just because you "like being ordered around" doesn't mean you have to ruin the future of the world

Or something? I like your uncertainty, lol. She is not uncertain about anything, she is comfortable with the current government and does not favor Anarchy. How is that uncertainty?

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

What, the same governments that are estimated to have killed 200 million people in the 20th century?
Oh yea. I feel real freakin safe with those bastards in power.
Bush running illegal wars. FBI rounding up environmentalists and trying to put them in jail for life.
Blair playing along with Bush's antics.
And I am only talking about thew "free" nations of the world.
"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #133 on: May 01, 2007, 05:51:18 AM »
Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.
Or your afraid of change. or something.
Just because you "like being ordered around" doesn't mean you have to ruin the future of the world

Or something? I like your uncertainty, lol. She is not uncertain about anything, she is comfortable with the current government and does not favor Anarchy. How is that uncertainty?

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

What, the same governments that are estimated to have killed 200 million people in the 20th century?
Oh yea. I feel real freakin safe with those bastards in power.
Bush running illegal wars. FBI rounding up environmentalists and trying to put them in jail for life.
Blair playing along with Bush's antics.
And I am only talking about thew "free" nations of the world.

Once again. All better than anarchy.

*

_MarquisDeSade

  • 178
  • +0/-0
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #134 on: May 01, 2007, 05:53:40 AM »
Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

And even so, entropy will always ensue.

There is no proof of this.

Human socialology. Organization will end up forming, thus anarchy goes bye bye. Aka, chaos to order.

"Could an anarchistic society work? On the face of it, the answer to this question seems rather obvious. The state is, after all, a relatively new development in human history, and certain organs of the state, such as the police force, came into existence within the last 500 years. There are also clear precedents of successful anarchistic societies that have existed in the modern era: Revolutionary Spain in the 1930s, the Zapatista communes in modern Mexico, Freetown Christiania in Denmark, and the Israeli kibbutzim, to pick a few noteworthy examples. The real question, then, is not whether or not an anarchistic society could work, but whether or not authoritarian institutions would reemerge.

While authoritarians would almost certainly attempt to reestablish coercive institutions, it seems unlikely that they would succeed, as they could only do so by convincing a large number of people to knowingly and willingly submit to domination. Freed slaves do not typically renounce their freedom. However, it is also clear that as long as humanity exists, there will be struggles between individuals who wish to oppress and dominate other human beings, and individuals who wish to protect liberty. So long as those individuals who wish to protect liberty remain united, proactive, and vigilant, however, they will always be able to defeat an authoritarian elite."
"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

*

_MarquisDeSade

  • 178
  • +0/-0
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #135 on: May 01, 2007, 05:56:58 AM »
Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.
Or your afraid of change. or something.
Just because you "like being ordered around" doesn't mean you have to ruin the future of the world

Or something? I like your uncertainty, lol. She is not uncertain about anything, she is comfortable with the current government and does not favor Anarchy. How is that uncertainty?

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

What, the same governments that are estimated to have killed 200 million people in the 20th century?
Oh yea. I feel real freakin safe with those bastards in power.
Bush running illegal wars. FBI rounding up environmentalists and trying to put them in jail for life.
Blair playing along with Bush's antics.
And I am only talking about thew "free" nations of the world.

Once again. All better than anarchy.

So what your saying is, it is alright that governments kill millions of people. Including the most "free" nations of the world.
Wow, you make a lot of sense.
First, you think just because there is not police, people just start randomly killing each other, so you are against anarchy being integrated into society. Then, you say it is alright that governments kill people. Wowzers.
"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #136 on: May 01, 2007, 05:59:14 AM »
People will kill people regardless of it being viewed one way or another. Natural selection evolved.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #137 on: May 01, 2007, 06:02:12 AM »
Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.
Or your afraid of change. or something.
Just because you "like being ordered around" doesn't mean you have to ruin the future of the world

Or something? I like your uncertainty, lol. She is not uncertain about anything, she is comfortable with the current government and does not favor Anarchy. How is that uncertainty?

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

What, the same governments that are estimated to have killed 200 million people in the 20th century?
Oh yea. I feel real freakin safe with those bastards in power.
Bush running illegal wars. FBI rounding up environmentalists and trying to put them in jail for life.
Blair playing along with Bush's antics.
And I am only talking about thew "free" nations of the world.

Once again. All better than anarchy.

So what your saying is, it is alright that governments kill millions of people. Including the most "free" nations of the world.
Wow, you make a lot of sense.
First, you think just because there is not police, people just start randomly killing each other, so you are against anarchy being integrated into society. Then, you say it is alright that governments kill people. Wowzers.

Anarchy = no order. Which equalls many deaths in the long run.

Also, your assumptions about our government are not backed up by support. If you are talking about the War on Terror, then we have somewhat of a right to kill people. IT'S A WAR. If you're saying that the government has gone and killed millions of people without any real specific or a hidden reason, then you are clearly mistaken. I'm sorry, I don't believe your pseudo-punk bullshit about how the government is pure evil. I'm not that naive.

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #138 on: May 01, 2007, 06:03:29 AM »
Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.
Or your afraid of change. or something.
Just because you "like being ordered around" doesn't mean you have to ruin the future of the world

Or something? I like your uncertainty, lol. She is not uncertain about anything, she is comfortable with the current government and does not favor Anarchy. How is that uncertainty?

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

What, the same governments that are estimated to have killed 200 million people in the 20th century?
Oh yea. I feel real freakin safe with those bastards in power.
Bush running illegal wars. FBI rounding up environmentalists and trying to put them in jail for life.
Blair playing along with Bush's antics.
And I am only talking about thew "free" nations of the world.

Once again. All better than anarchy.

So what your saying is, it is alright that governments kill millions of people. Including the most "free" nations of the world.
Wow, you make a lot of sense.
First, you think just because there is not police, people just start randomly killing each other, so you are against anarchy being integrated into society. Then, you say it is alright that governments kill people. Wowzers.

Anarchy = no order. Which equalls many deaths in the long run.

Also, your assumptions about our government are not backed up by support. If you are talking about the War on Terror, then we have somewhat of a right to kill people. IT'S A WAR. If you're saying that the government has gone and killed millions of people without any real specific or a hidden reason, then you are clearly mistaken. I'm sorry, I don't believe your pseudo-punk bullshit about how the government is pure evil. I'm not that naive.

Irony wearing clothing.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

_MarquisDeSade

  • 178
  • +0/-0
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #139 on: May 01, 2007, 06:05:03 AM »
People will kill people regardless of it being viewed one way or another. Natural selection evolved.
"Whenever Anarchists attack present-day society, they touch on the fears and prejudices of average people who know that society is a jungle today and cannot visualise life without the safeguards needed in the jungle. When they hear of Anarchism they bring forward objections which are, in fact, criticisms of the present system they do not otherwise admit but think of as objections to a Free Society of the future.

They fear what is known in the Statist language as a "state of Anarchy" -- they think murder, rape, robbery, violent attack would ensue if there were no Government to prevent it. And yet we all know that Government cannot, certainly does not., prevent it. One has only to pick up the papers to learn that it flourishes though Government is strong, and also where Government is weak, and more so perhaps where there are numerous bodies competing as to which is the Government and Government is said to have broken down. "A state of Anarchy" nowhere exists -- in the sense there a society where there is no Government and not just a weak or divided Government.

The most a functioning Government can do is not prevention but punishment -- when it finds out, sometimes wrongly or not at all -- who the culprits are, its own methods of repressive action can cause far more damage than the original crimes -- the "cure" is worse than the disease.

"What would you do without a police force?" Society would never tolerate murder, whether it had a police force or not. The institutionalisation of a body to look after crime means that it not only "looks after" crime and nourishes crime, but that the rest of society is absolved from doing so. The reasoning is that a murder next door is the State's business, not mine! Responsibility for one's neighbour is reduced in an authoritarian society, in which the State is solely responsible for our behaviour. "

"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

*

_MarquisDeSade

  • 178
  • +0/-0
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #140 on: May 01, 2007, 06:09:10 AM »
Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.
Or your afraid of change. or something.
Just because you "like being ordered around" doesn't mean you have to ruin the future of the world

Or something? I like your uncertainty, lol. She is not uncertain about anything, she is comfortable with the current government and does not favor Anarchy. How is that uncertainty?

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

What, the same governments that are estimated to have killed 200 million people in the 20th century?
Oh yea. I feel real freakin safe with those bastards in power.
Bush running illegal wars. FBI rounding up environmentalists and trying to put them in jail for life.
Blair playing along with Bush's antics.
And I am only talking about thew "free" nations of the world.

Once again. All better than anarchy.

So what your saying is, it is alright that governments kill millions of people. Including the most "free" nations of the world.
Wow, you make a lot of sense.
First, you think just because there is not police, people just start randomly killing each other, so you are against anarchy being integrated into society. Then, you say it is alright that governments kill people. Wowzers.

Anarchy = no order. Which equalls many deaths in the long run.

Also, your assumptions about our government are not backed up by support. If you are talking about the War on Terror, then we have somewhat of a right to kill people. IT'S A WAR. If you're saying that the government has gone and killed millions of people without any real specific or a hidden reason, then you are clearly mistaken. I'm sorry, I don't believe your pseudo-punk bullshit about how the government is pure evil. I'm not that naive.

Anarchy does not mean no order. It means order through parallel structure.
I am talking about the war in Iraq.
The US gov't has killed tens of thousands of people (Nicaragua, Hiroshima) for no apparent reason, or to protect the investments of capitalists.
No, government is not pure evil, it is unneeded.
Not all anarchists are punks. Noam Chomsky ain't no punk.
"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

*

_MarquisDeSade

  • 178
  • +0/-0
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #141 on: May 01, 2007, 06:10:09 AM »
Even if true anarchy could work I don't think I'd actually want it, I'm pretty comfortable with being "ordered" around, makes things a lot simpler.
Or your afraid of change. or something.
Just because you "like being ordered around" doesn't mean you have to ruin the future of the world

Or something? I like your uncertainty, lol. She is not uncertain about anything, she is comfortable with the current government and does not favor Anarchy. How is that uncertainty?

Anarchy is not the future of the world, unless the fate of the world is pure chaos.

What, the same governments that are estimated to have killed 200 million people in the 20th century?
Oh yea. I feel real freakin safe with those bastards in power.
Bush running illegal wars. FBI rounding up environmentalists and trying to put them in jail for life.
Blair playing along with Bush's antics.
And I am only talking about thew "free" nations of the world.

Once again. All better than anarchy.

So what your saying is, it is alright that governments kill millions of people. Including the most "free" nations of the world.
Wow, you make a lot of sense.
First, you think just because there is not police, people just start randomly killing each other, so you are against anarchy being integrated into society. Then, you say it is alright that governments kill people. Wowzers.

Anarchy = no order. Which equalls many deaths in the long run.

Also, your assumptions about our government are not backed up by support. If you are talking about the War on Terror, then we have somewhat of a right to kill people. IT'S A WAR. If you're saying that the government has gone and killed millions of people without any real specific or a hidden reason, then you are clearly mistaken. I'm sorry, I don't believe your pseudo-punk bullshit about how the government is pure evil. I'm not that naive.
Where the hell is there order in the world now anyway?
"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #142 on: May 01, 2007, 06:11:03 AM »
Semantics never win a debate. They merely delay the end.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

?

Roar Wise.

  • 7
  • +0/-0
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #143 on: May 01, 2007, 06:51:26 AM »
hey//breaking shits pretty fun though  :P

*

_MarquisDeSade

  • 178
  • +0/-0
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #144 on: May 01, 2007, 11:06:42 AM »
hey//breaking shits pretty fun though  :P

Especially a neo-nazis face ;D
"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

*

_MarquisDeSade

  • 178
  • +0/-0
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #145 on: May 02, 2007, 05:49:57 AM »
I would describe myself as an anarchist, but in truth, anarchy is nothing but a pipe dream because of the very nature of mankind, which seems to be to fuck up everything we can.   ???

Indeedy. Anarchy in today's society would spell bad news. True anarchy, though, would be utopic.

~D-Draw
Same exact thing monarchs claimed democracy would do if implemented. "Democracy = anarchy"
"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

?

cadmium_blimp

  • 1499
  • +0/-0
  • funny, you thought I'd convert, didn't you?
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #146 on: May 02, 2007, 06:11:15 AM »
Do yourself a favor and join your nearest Libertarian Party.  It's a nice little compromise and you might get to feel like you're making a difference.

Quote from: Commander Taggart
Never give up, never surrender!

?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
  • +0/-0
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #147 on: May 02, 2007, 06:58:26 AM »
Anarchy does not mean no order. It means order through parallel structure.
I am talking about the war in Iraq.
The US gov't has killed tens of thousands of people (Nicaragua, Hiroshima) for no apparent reason, or to protect the investments of capitalists.
No, government is not pure evil, it is unneeded.
Not all anarchists are punks. Noam Chomsky ain't no punk.

Chomsky is a libertarian, not an anarchist.

*

_MarquisDeSade

  • 178
  • +0/-0
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #148 on: May 02, 2007, 11:05:54 AM »
Anarchy does not mean no order. It means order through parallel structure.
I am talking about the war in Iraq.
The US gov't has killed tens of thousands of people (Nicaragua, Hiroshima) for no apparent reason, or to protect the investments of capitalists.
No, government is not pure evil, it is unneeded.
Not all anarchists are punks. Noam Chomsky ain't no punk.

Chomsky is a libertarian, not an anarchist.

Even though he says he is an anarchist?

"PeaceWORKS: Dr. Chomsky, why do you call yourself a "libertarian anarchist" rather than a plain "anarchist"?

Noam Chomsky: The term I usually use is "libertarian socialist," which is fairly standard usage in the anarchist tradition. Anarchism covers a pretty broad range. One major sector in Europe regarded itself as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement. Unfortunately, the term "libertarian" has a different usage in the United States, which departs from the tradition. Here the term "libertarian" means anarcho- capitalist. "[1]

[1] http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9405-peaceworks.html

A liberatarian socialist is an anarchist.

"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets

*

_MarquisDeSade

  • 178
  • +0/-0
Re: Discussion on Anarchy
« Reply #149 on: May 02, 2007, 11:07:38 AM »
Do yourself a favor and join your nearest Libertarian Party.  It's a nice little compromise and you might get to feel like you're making a difference.

"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."

-- Robert Anton Wilson

There is no compromise in the defense of the earth.
"Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them so what good are they?"

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets