Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Anarchy is by definition a lack of order and organization. You don't want "Anarchy", You want what my politics professor called "Governmental Individualism"
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nonsense.
No I think that's a better way to put it. You want a totally decentralized government. Truthfully if you used my professors term over anarchy, you would have less people disagreeing with you. I don't agree with your ideas, but I think what puts people off them is more the term you choose to use and the image it brings up to people.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
No I think that's a better way to put it. You want a totally decentralized government. Truthfully if you used my professors term over anarchy, you would have less people disagreeing with you. I don't agree with your ideas, but I think what puts people off them is more the term you choose to use and the image it brings up to people.
No. I want no government. That's a better way of putting it as it would be correct.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Anarchy is by definition a lack of order and organization. You don't want "Anarchy", You want what my politics professor called "Governmental Individualism"
No, they want anarchy which is simply lack of government, not the presence of chaos. It seems they're willing to settle of Individualism as a stepping stone to anarchy.
well personally i always thought anarchy meant no rules and we all do whatever we want. if that's not what anarchy is, then what exactly is the political term for what i described?
i dont know about anyone else, but if u asked me: without laws and police, yes i would most certainly steal, cheat, and resort to violence. i think it's all about working with the system you have in place. if there were no concrete rules there's no logical reason to fear the consequences.
sure, you can say protection agencies would defend you, but whats to stop me from hiring a protection agency of my own? in fact, whats to stop the mafia or some other broad criminal enterprise from starting a huge protection agency with greater or equal weaponry and man-power to intimidate the protection agencies that would protect the normal citizens? surely if hiring protection would be an issue for the ordinary citizens it would be even more so for criminals with more deadly enemies than the average person. not to mention their clientele would usually have more expendable cash at their hands.
Originally posted by red g jacks
well personally i always thought anarchy meant no rules and we all do whatever we want. if that's not what anarchy is, then what exactly is the political term for what i described?i dont know about anyone else, but if u asked me: without laws and police, yes i would most certainly steal, cheat, and resort to violence. i think it's all about working with the system you have in place. if there were no concrete rules there's no logical reason to fear the consequences.
sure, you can say protection agencies would defend you, but whats to stop me from hiring a protection agency of my own? in fact, whats to stop the mafia or some other broad criminal enterprise from starting a huge protection agency with greater or equal weaponry and man-power to intimidate the protection agencies that would protect the normal citizens? surely if hiring protection would be an issue for the ordinary citizens it would be even more so for criminals with more deadly enemies than the average person. not to mention their clientele would usually have more expendable cash at their hands.
The prblem with the Anarchy option, is who would you vote for in an election, there can´t be an "anarchy party" as anarchy itself rejects such
ideas.
In an Anarchic society you´d have a case of the "strongest survive" similiar to nature I suppose. So people with big guns and no conscience would dominate by killing anyone who apposes them a la Mad Max.
Originally posted by BicnarokThere could actuadlly be an anarchist party. Though anarchist dislike the idea they could still use it for their goals.
The prblem with the Anarchy option, is who would you vote for in an election, there can´t be an "anarchy party" as anarchy itself rejects such
ideas.In an Anarchic society you´d have a case of the "strongest survive" similiar to nature I suppose. So people with big guns and no conscience would dominate by killing anyone who apposes them a la Mad Max.
And that's the very simplistic view of anarchy that seems to be common in our society. It's not necessarily what would happen though.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos[QUOTE=11052904]Originally posted by inimalist
Have you seen Resevoir Dogs? Think of that discussion at the beginning about tipping waitresses.
Haven't seen it.
[/QUOTE]not to beat a dead horse, but see it, so good
Originally posted by inimalist
[B]Haven't seen it.
not to beat a dead horse, but see it, so good
Is that not a fairly good argument against anarcho-capitalism? He refuses to tip out of selfishness and the feeling that tipping takes money needlessly out of his own pocket, in fact the other guy eventually agrees with him and attempts to take his money back. In the end the only reason the tip is left is because he's partially repaying an informal debt to the other guy. The arguments he brings up in favor of letting her go hungry and receive less than she worked for are the same one's brought up in favor of anarcho-capitalist freemarket economics "she can go get another job".
Good scene though, I'll probably go rent that.
I know I will be called a "bleeding heart" for this, but when I look for a system I look for one that will take care of everyone equally. I think it's fine for money to be a factor in how nice of a home you have or the car you drive or the extra things you have. But when it comes to having food to eat or a place to stay or health care or police and fire department protection, those cannot be left up to chance, those have to be there and the only way to 100% make sure they are there is for them to be government run.