What would your polictical party be? Should we abolish the political spectrum?

lol all this talk reminds me of the movie idiocracy...(many nights I could have starred in that movie..)lol..people suck and are lazy....to go on... away from that movie..sort of..they (people) cannot run their own house so they look to someone else to tell them what to do..thus why goverments can control so easy...russia they just wanted their vodka and they would listen...cut off their vodka they get irritated and start not being so lazy...and try to do things...figure out how to get their vodka back..LOL....anarchy cannot werk because people suck sometimes...example...your neighbor gets drunk comes over and hits on your woman..you kill him...you dont goto jail because your in a "state" of anarchy and their is no government to lock you up...but that dumbass left a family who are going to suffer...then to survive they come to your garden and steal your veggies..cause they just lost there main provider..thats where things start falling apart..now if people were cool you just knock your neighbor out drag his butt home and leave him a bottle of asprin..lol...but sometimes people will not tolerate...everything falls apart because people suck sometimes and many are intolerant and hypocritical etc..anyways I'm rambling but I hope someone gets my point...(see Im drinkin and I want someone else to word it right for me)...damn we suck...some of you dudes make alot of sense so noone take offense...Im goin to the milk bar

Originally posted by Jack Daniels
lol all this talk reminds me of the movie idiocracy...(many nights I could have starred in that movie..)lol..people suck and are lazy....to go on... away from that movie..sort of..they (people) cannot run their own house so they look to someone else to tell them what to do..thus why goverments can control so easy...russia they just wanted their vodka and they would listen...cut off their vodka they get irritated and start not being so lazy...and try to do things...figure out how to get their vodka back..LOL....anarchy cannot werk because people suck sometimes...example...your neighbor gets drunk comes over and hits on your woman..you kill him...you dont goto jail because your in a "state" of anarchy and their is no government to lock you up...but that dumbass left a family who are going to suffer...then to survive they come to your garden and steal your veggies..cause they just lost there main provider..thats where things start falling apart..now if people were cool you just knock your neighbor out drag his butt home and leave him a bottle of asprin..lol...but sometimes people will not tolerate...everything falls apart because people suck sometimes and many are intolerant and hypocritical etc..anyways I'm rambling but I hope someone gets my point...(see Im drinkin and I want someone else to word it right for me)...damn we suck...some of you dudes make alot of sense so noone take offense...Im goin to the milk bar

You . . . are very drunk.

damn guess that means you didnt figure it out for me...lol...

Originally posted by BackFire
Happned in Mad Max.

Didn't work out too well. Everyone wore silly football shoulder pads and drove buggies.

Well, that doesnt sound to bad. Does everyone get their own buggie?

To have a political party which offers something different would be a start.

What about a party which would turn britian into a neutral bank haven like switzerland?

Originally posted by inimalist
No, I understand that

In a lot of ways it is more a moral sentiment than something that is workable as a political theory. I think it is possible, but ya, not something that reasonably would occur in the near future.

Could you have said this on page 1?

25 pages I just read, you ****.

What the f*ck is it with all these serious threads being started with horrible, distracting failures in grammar? "Semtember 11" "Polictical party be?"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
People do things.
Things people do are what people do.
People follow their nature.
Governments are not created by aliens.
Governments exist.
Governments do not exist when governments do not exist.

When governments do not exist people follow their nature and create them. I suppose you could try to make the argument that human nature goes against human nature but that would be completely insane.

I personally refuse to be associated with either party. they are all pretty much lying, cheating politicians.

I mean look at the current presidential election. name 1 thing that Obama or Mcain is going to do to fix health care, gas prices or any number of issues.

The answer is NOTHING, because it is not within the power of the president to do any of that. if a law/bill happens to come across the desk of the pres. he/she can either sign it or veto it. The president can request action on the part of congress. But for any presidential candidate to say "I'm going to fix ______" is a complete farce.

That is why this whole "change" thing in this election is just a sick joke to get the votes of the sheeple.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Why should there be less government interference?

Even if we don't get into the morality of government and taxes inherently, I would argue that large, top-down government interference normally leads to bloated bureaucratic money sinks.

less rhetorically, I'm sure I don't need to point you to examples of places where government spending or corruption is a problem. I don't, obviously, think we live in a cleptocracy or anything dumb like that, just that, at the very least, less government, from the top, and more local and bottom-up policy making would be a step in the right direction. I know its not a 100% protection from what I was just speaking of, but I feel it can make people more responsible and politicians more accountable if the voter has direct influence over the outcomes of their community.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So there were a few anarchist societies with limited success and a number of tiny ones

well, bands and tribes, precursor societies to modern ones (in anthropological theory) had very limited and fluid government establishments, often being entirely horizontal or established when organization was needed on a task.

As societies got larger, people were able to profit from controlling others and the fruits of their labour, and given there were no already implemented protections against people taking control of others, state and government systems formed.

The idea that human history is the history of people getting together and forming official state establishments is ridiculous. At the very least, most continents, prior to modern times, didn't have robust enough resources to provide the underlying economies and local stability (farming vs hunter gatherer) for full scale state institutions.

And, as also argued below, the reasons for the failure of anarchist states is not necessarily a property of anarchy, but a property of authority.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
which cannot be extrapolated up to a large scale because they never have to deal with dissent. Not much to go on.

admittedly that is correct. I don't think dissent is necessarily the most damaging part of an anarchist society. I think you are extrapolating something far more cold and mad max like than anything being presented here. While we have said people would have to pay for security (they do now anyways), never have we said we want communities where there is no order in such a way that people can run around shooting and raping each other. Obviously that is not a desirable, or necessary, outcome of anarchist political theory. Anarchists suggest that peace can be maintained through systems that are voluntary and not run by top down state policies which are essentially removed from public opinion.

Also, given the examples I provided, the fact that Anarchist states would have problems with market consolidation and enemy armies seem far more salient than local dissent.

That all of those examples cannot be drawn up to large scale is correct. This is, however, due to a lack of any evidence. There is ample evidence to show points which were conceded early on, such as, powerful violent people are a problem for anarchist society or that it is hard to stop rich people from just controlling everything. This, however, does not mean there aren't non-state interventions that can control for these things, and again there is a problem with lack of evidence. People willing to subjugate others are the reason why large scale anarchy has never been even attempted, with the possible Iceland example.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Could you have said this on page 1?

25 pages I just read, you ****.

I did. I have, constantly throughout

I hardly think I'm responsible for the 25 page shit on anarchy fest

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Although if I were then I'd probably tend more towards yours than Bardocks.

I am not exactly sure what the differences between his and mine are, really.

[edit] I guess he finds the word socialist less distasteful, then again I believe he uses it incorrectly

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not exactly sure what the differences between his and mine are, really.

[edit] I guess he finds the word socialist less distasteful, then again I believe he uses it incorrectly

P.S. I still love you more.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It pretty much was more the slight "socialist" stance, and his acceptance that there may not be a way to address "the advancement of human society" question I posed, and he's not German.

P.S. I still love you more.

Haha, fair enough...though I do agree that there might not be an answer ... in fact I can't say 100% that Anarchy would work anything like what I imagine it could work as...I was just trying to give possible answer.

And I love you, too, sweetypie.

Originally posted by Bardock42
in fact I can't say 100% that Anarchy would work anything like what I imagine it could work as...I was just trying to give possible answer.

All this thread has amounted to is anarchy's two supporters, you and Inimalist, eventually grinding to the halt of "But this is all in our minds, I've no idea if it would work in the real world.", which is exactly why it will only ever exist there, in your mind.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
All this thread has amounted to is anarchy's two supporters, you and Inimalist, eventually grinding to the halt of "But this is all in our minds, I've no idea if it would work in the real world.", which is exactly why it will only ever exist there, in your mind.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, your argument is that everything people do is natural?

Everything that people do is what is natural for people to do. Ironically if you deny that your entire Randian philosophy falls apart since it relys on people doing the "right" thing on the basis that that is also the "natural" thing for them to do.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, bands and tribes, precursor societies to modern ones (in anthropological theory) had very limited and fluid government establishments, often being entirely horizontal or established when organization was needed on a task.

As societies got larger, people were able to profit from controlling others and the fruits of their labour, and given there were no already implemented protections against people taking control of others, state and government systems formed.

So . . . people all over the place make governments . . .

Originally posted by inimalist
The idea that human history is the history of people getting together and forming official state establishments is ridiculous. At the very least, most continents, prior to modern times, didn't have robust enough resources to provide the underlying economies and local stability (farming vs hunter gatherer) for full scale state institutions.

No, I mean that just about everywhere at every time someone built a government. It's an inevitable aspect of what people do. The fact that it builds on itself is irrelevant to that.

Originally posted by inimalist
And, as also argued below, the reasons for the failure of anarchist states is not necessarily a property of anarchy, but a property of authority.

Which counts as a rather severe flaw in anarchy.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think you are extrapolating something far more cold and mad max like than anything being presented here. While we have said people would have to pay for security (they do now anyways), never have we said we want communities where there is no order in such a way that people can run around shooting and raping each other. Obviously that is not a desirable, or necessary, outcome of anarchist political theory. Anarchists suggest that peace can be maintained through systems that are voluntary and not run by top down state policies which are essentially removed from public opinion.

I get the idea. It's a nice idea. Claiming that it's realistic or workable with the way people act isn't true though. If it were anarchy wouldn't exist as a philosophy, someone would have built a utopia and the rest of the world would follow suit.

Originally posted by inimalist
Also, given the examples I provided, the fact that Anarchist states would have problems with market consolidation and enemy armies seem far more salient than local dissent.

Poor choice of words on my part. I just meant that small communities are built only of people who want to be there and make it work. In reality there are people who want to gain from the system (a large minority), people who don't understand the system (a large majority) and people who are doing what is actually best for people (an infinitesimal minority that mostly gets ignored anyway). Fixing social problems isn't an issue of fixing society, it's an issue of fixing people so that they aren't idiots.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Everything that people do is what is natural for people to do. Ironically if you deny that your entire Randian philosophy falls apart since it relys on people doing the "right" thing on the basis that that is also the "natural" thing for them to do.

I'm not an objectivist. But then the forming of communist governments is natural, the forming of anarchist societies is natural...everything that ever happened is natural? What's the point of saying "Humans form governments naturally"? And how is it not just countered with "Yeah, but humans also don't form governments naturally"?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not an objectivist. But then the forming of communist governments is natural, the forming of anarchist societies is natural...everything that ever happened is natural?

Did it happen in nature?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What's the point of saying "Humans form governments naturally"? And how is it not just countered with "Yeah, but humans also don't form governments naturally"?

I direct you again to human history. People make governments all time time. You can cry about it all you like but you can't rationally deny it. People are much more likely to form a government than live in anarchy. For the majority anarchy is not something they think is natural, government is. So go fix people before you try establishing an idealist society.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Did it happen in nature?

What is "happening in nature" to you?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I direct you again to human history. People make governments all time time. You can cry about it all you like but you can't rationally deny it. People are much more likely to form a government than live in anarchy. For the majority anarchy is not something they think is natural, government is. So go fix people before you try establishing an idealist society.

Yeah, for the majority of people living in a government is the norm and they can't see how anarchy would work. Pretty sure I made that point earlier. That's why no anarchist I know believes things would be better if all governments would just be abolished immediately. Why exactly do you make me repeat myself constantly?

When the **** did this thread get so many pages?