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

Originally posted by Bardock42
What does society "really" need?

The ability to function. Why shouldn't it have that?

Originally posted by Bardock42
And who is that "society" that really needs it?

People. Why shouldn't they have a working system of education and such?

Originally posted by Bardock42
And how many are in that "society" that really needs it.

That is what mathematician and scientists call a "variable". Why should it matter how many people need help?

Originally posted by Bardock42
And why exactly can't they pay for it themselves?

They've been crushed under the heel of the oppressive business practices anarchy so readily invites. What did they do to deserve that?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The ability to function. Why shouldn't it have that?

What does it need the money for?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
People. Why shouldn't they have a working system of education and such?

They should if they want to. Anyone that wants can spend as much money as they have on one.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That is what mathematician and scientists call a "variable". Why should it matter how many people need help?

It doesn't really, just wondering what your hypothetical was about. I see you didn't have one now though and realize it was just a "I will ask a question and then pretend it can only be solved by a government though I will not support that with any logic or facts". My bad.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

They've been crushed under the heel of the oppressive business practices anarchy so readily invites. What did they do to deserve that?

Nothing. I do doubt it happened though. If it did, they may form a government and I'll go eat my words. Not going to happen though, but good job convincing me.

In an extended question, why do people that don't want to work deserve to be actively killed?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What does it need the money for?

Well you based you social system on people wanting money . . .

Originally posted by Bardock42
It doesn't really, just wondering what your hypothetical was about. I see you didn't have one now though and realize it was just a "I will ask a question and then pretend it can only be solved by a government though I will not support that with any logic or facts". My bad.

That would have been much more effective if you'd even once given a rational reason for anarchy working.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In an extended question, why do people that don't want to work deserve to be actively killed?

The same reason the poor deserve not to receive any protection, medical care or housing I assume.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well you based you social system on people wanting money . . .

That would have been much more effective if you'd even once given a rational reason for anarchy working.

The same reason the poor deserve not to receive any protection, medical care or housing I assume.

I think I will just stop talking to you. You disregard everything that's said. Getting tedious.

People, People, People...

lets not be so harsh to each other!

However, here is what we know.

Say about, 300 people all live near each other, they use the same water supply, the area to trade in, the same areas to socialize.

This 300 strong group will become a community- they may band together to protect themselves from others and also ensure order and stability between them.

Eventually they are going to start organizing themselves- important people, like say the village Doctor and other educated types will start coordinating the groups affairs, soon the 300 decide to make an assembly where they all go to meet and discuss the affairs of the village. This assembly is totally democratic- everyone has equal say...however, it takes a long time and so they need people to be in charge of the day to day running of the city...a council is elected of 50 people to govern the 300. As the village grows, so does the bureaucracy. The village becomes a prosperous little town with everyone working together- say 1000 citizens. The assembly system still works but the Council is gaining more clout...it takes upon itself more and more authority to govern the affairs of the town- a government is born...(well, truly it was a government the first time the villagers came together and started to make policy back in the early days of the 300)

Now, nearby this town there is another small village, maybe 200 people living in it. This village has access to mines, but not allot of water...

There are various scenarios that could happen, here are two.

The village and town work together and become a unit- a larger council is needed to govern this larger territory- this process continues until many villages and towns are joined together- a national government is made!

Or, the Town could annex the village and impose its rule over them (with the threat of force)- this process goes on until the Town of 1000 has annexed many smaller villages and towns- a national government is made!

And so on and so forth- it is inevitable.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
People, People, People...

lets not be so harsh to each other!

However, here is what we know.

Say about, 300 people all live near each other, they use the same water supply, the area to trade in, the same areas to socialize.

This 300 strong group will become a community- they may band together to protect themselves from others and also ensure order and stability between them.

Eventually they are going to start organizing themselves- important people, like say the village Doctor and other educated types will start coordinating the groups affairs, soon the 300 decide to make an assembly where they all go to meet and discuss the affairs of the village. This assembly is totally democratic- everyone has equal say...however, it takes a long time and so they need people to be in charge of the day to day running of the city...a council is elected of 50 people to govern the 300. As the village grows, so does the bureaucracy. The village becomes a prosperous little town with everyone working together- say 1000 citizens. The assembly system still works but the Council is gaining more clout...it takes upon itself more and more authority to govern the affairs of the town- a government is born...(well, truly it was a government the first time the villagers came together and started to make policy back in the early days of the 300)

Now, nearby this town there is another small village, maybe 200 people living in it. This village has access to mines, but not allot of water...

There are various scenarios that could happen, here are two.

The village and town work together and become a unit- a larger council is needed to govern this larger territory- this process continues until many villages and towns are joined together- a national government is made!

Or, the Town could annex the village and impose its rule over them (with the threat of force)- this process goes on until the Town of 1000 has annexed many smaller villages and towns- a national government is made!

And so on and so forth- it is inevitable.

The thing is, I don't see the inevitableness in that. I realize it has happened, and I realize that it could happen again. But I don't see why you think it would have to happen. I don't see why I should believe that here in Germany, the only thing that keeps me from killing others in the next town and the only thing that keeps all the others from killing me is that a few police cars patrol the streets. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't regardless. And even if I wanted to, I'm pretty sure that a voluntary community polic force and a few protection agencies would just as well make me not do it.

As I said earlier, I appreciate what you believe, I used to believe it, too, but I am not convinced by it anymore, especially since it is only a hypothetical, I don't see how it is necessary.

So where did anarchy work, for a while, and why did it fail?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So where did anarchy work, for a while, and why did it fail?

-AC

I'm not into your little question game, lets answer it in the most perfect fashion for what you think proves your point: "It worked twice, once it stopped because it got overtaken by outside forces that were more powerful due to a government the other time the people themselves decided to abandon it as it didn't work out and they wanted a government again". That or "It never worked". In fact, please just answer the question yourself in the most negative way possible you can imagine. The answer doesn't matter, as the question is irrelevent. It won't prove anything, either way, no matter how much you think you trap me with that question (as I said, choose whatever answer you want, it's not going to change my arguments or my position and it doesn't prove anything for your position)

Just remember this whenever you accuse someone else of dodging.

I thought you were above it, clearly I was wrong.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Just remember this whenever you accuse someone else of dodging.

I thought you were above it, clearly I was wrong.

-AC

That's my answer, no dodge, alright for you? Can we move on now? Was that question necessary? No it wasn't.

Why are you acting like a stupid little child?

I'm open to your true answer.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why are you acting like a stupid little child?

I'm open to your true answer.

-AC

That was my true answer. Now say your bit. And we move on. It's my answer, I stand by it.

Well if that's your true answer, then it only proves my earlier arguments.

So my next question is; why do you believe it would work?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well if that's your true answer, then it only proves my earlier arguments.

So my next question is; why do you believe it would work?

-AC

Because it is based on a system that is known to work (free market, community gatherings) and has multiple theoretical safety mechanisms that should be able to make it run smoothly.

Besides the fact that it's also known to fail and there are currently no working systems of anarchy to my knowledge, there's too much "Theoretical" and "Should".

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Besides the fact that it's also known to fail and there are currently no working systems of anarchy to my knowledge, there's too much "Theoretical" and "Should".

-AC

So so far in this thread varying degrees of anarchy, totalitarianism and democracy have been discussed.

So would you say the the political spectrum of this century is between Chaos---Order as opposed Left Wing---Right Wing?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
So so far in this thread varying degrees of anarchy, totalitarianism and democracy have been discussed.

So would you say the the political spectrum of this century is between Chaos---Order as opposed Left Wing---Right Wing?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. If you have read the thread the Anarchy proposed is very different from Chaos.

But then can it really be called anarchy? Maybe there is a better name for it.

It's what anarchy is. A lack of government. It is not automatically turmoil.