Conquer Club

Okay, so far my conclusion on Anarchy, is that if people do things locally there be no need for a government. But if one does not truly understand Anarchy then it will not become successful and he or she will impose pure desire to uphold values within a society. correct?

johnjohn0701 wrote:

Machiavelli wrote:I hope that revolution happens in 10-50 years, so that I can be the one to rule the world!!! Mwuahahaha!!!

Errr...

I mean....


Go democracy!

can i go communism? i mean whats the diff. b/w democracy & communism since i m taking political science classes now and we need to distingulish them so...

Nice Avatar comrade...

Democracy and communism are not opposing ideologies they can be complimentary. Democracy is the rule of the majority i.e. the population vote on issues effecting the rule of the country (in some way) and how it should be implemented.
Communism is the ideology where the control of the means of production (factories) is in the hands of the producers (i.e. the workers) and the production (goods) is shared equally (or more equally ).

There are many different forms of "communism" but it is not necessarily impossible to have a communist democratic state.

Gavino07 wrote:To anarchists out there, please explain to me that with no form of government over the people will not become a state of chaos. If there is no governments and only the people will do whatever they want, the people will be divided into families and get in conflicts with other families. Then eventually Families will unite as a organized society, which pretty much operate as a goverment. Do not forget the Truth i stated about Mankind!

i have to agree...parents at kids sports games break into fights all the time...these people have plenty of money, nice homes...no worries of consequence....and still manage to lose their tempers over whether their kid scored a goal or not....if there wasnt a cop at these things paid by a government....people would die....

if there werent cops on the highway, it would be a disaster....

and national disasters...a bunch of local governments cant coordinate for such things....how can they possibly trust the other local governments will come to their aid....you cant necessarily count on the federal government

we dont need less government...we need better government that is more concerned with the people than with themselves....but that isnt too easy to find...since most people...are concerned more with themselves...

but hoping to abolish governments is like hoping to colonize Mars...it may happen...but youre not gonna have any part in it....just focus on making the government better if you really want to help...

AAFitz wrote:but hoping to abolish governments is like hoping to colonize Mars...it may happen...but youre not gonna have any part in it....just focus on making the government better if you really want to help...

Its reactionary talk like this that keeps us in the dark ages. Mankind should be striving for more inventive, fairer, effective forms of government systems not prop up the existing archaic oppressive regimes.

AAFitz wrote:
if there werent cops on the highway, it would be a disaster....

To this point specifically.
Research has proven that drivers actually drive safer without any road markings or regulations at all (as they are forced to concentrate more on the road than "metal switch of into cruise control" trusting the system.

Cant find a link to the original research, but here's an article about it.

we dont need less government...we need better government

better government=less government.

True, but there are always going to be a few that will take advantage of such a system and do whatever the hell it is they want.

unriggable wrote:True, but there are always going to be a few that will take advantage of such a system and do whatever the hell it is they want.

Like what?


If you have a population that is armed to the teeth and an understanding of the Non-Aggression Axiom, what would go wrong?

If you have a population that is armed to the teeth and an understanding of the Non-Aggression Axiom, what would go wrong?

Yes, and *IF* my money tree ever sprouts, I'll be rich.

Non-aggression axiom. Jesus, that's lame. You have zero understanding of humanity.

If only someone would explain the "non-aggression axiom" to muggers and gang members! I'm sure that'd sort everything out.

Anarchy is a dumb ass idea. It's the social and political equivalent of those survivalist guys in the states who buy a farm and lots of canned goods, then shoot anyone who tries to come near. It's backward.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:If you have a population that is armed to the teeth and an understanding of the Non-Aggression Axiom, what would go wrong?

If the population had an understanding of the Non-Aggression Axiom, why would they need to be armed to the teeth?

Spuzzell wrote:Anarchy is a dumb ass idea. It's the social and political equivalent of those survivalist guys in the states who buy a farm and lots of canned goods, then shoot anyone who tries to come near. It's backward.

Explain how you came to that conclusion..


-X

Spuzzell wrote:

If you have a population that is armed to the teeth and an understanding of the Non-Aggression Axiom, what would go wrong?

Yes, and *IF* my money tree ever sprouts, I'll be rich.

Non-aggression axiom. Jesus, that's lame. You have zero understanding of humanity.

Blow me.

You have not the slightest fucking clue what anarchy is.

If only someone would explain the "non-aggression axiom" to muggers and gang members! I'm sure that'd sort everything out.

Yeah, you don't know how it functions. The Non-Aggression Axiom would be support by the Unlimited Right to Arms.

Now tell, asshole, who the f*ck would try and mug you if you have a pistol hidden somewhere in you jacket?

Anarchy is a dumb ass idea. It's the social and political equivalent of those survivalist guys in the states who buy a farm and lots of canned goods, then shoot anyone who tries to come near. It's backward.

What did you rip that off of, ED? Tell me, instead of just spouting off baseless words, why don't you actually critique it.

Stopper wrote:

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:If you have a population that is armed to the teeth and an understanding of the Non-Aggression Axiom, what would go wrong?

If the population had an understanding of the Non-Aggression Axiom, why would they need to be armed to the teeth?

Because not everyone has your best intentions in mind. You always needs a back up plan. By no means does understanding a principle idea equate to following that principle or idea.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:If you have a population that is armed to the teeth and an understanding of the Non-Aggression Axiom, what would go wrong?

I like your idea, but how do you force everyone to get armed to the teeth? I'm a pro-gun guy in a pro-gun state, and people still claim that we should abolish the armed citizenry. It seems that all of the ideas that need to come into play to enforce anarchy have to somehow be instituted by government, which seems like a contradictory position for an anarchist to take.

MR. Nate wrote:

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:If you have a population that is armed to the teeth and an understanding of the Non-Aggression Axiom, what would go wrong?

I like your idea, but how do you force everyone to get armed to the teeth? I'm a pro-gun guy in a pro-gun state, and people still claim that we should abolish the armed citizenry. It seems that all of the ideas that need to come into play to enforce anarchy have to somehow be instituted by government, which seems like a contradictory position for an anarchist to take.

You wouldn't be forced to owned a gun, but it would be recommended. You could opt to pay a private company for police like protection, or something along those equivalent lines.

Anarchy is a dumb ass idea. It's the social and political equivalent of those survivalist guys in the states who buy a farm and lots of canned goods, then shoot anyone who tries to come near. It's backward.

Now that I have some tea in me, I would like to go back and address this.

Surely, you mean the survivalists like Rothbard, Mises, Bastiat, Spooner, Di Molinari, Wolfe, Friedman, or Faucher?

This is nothing but a lame attack with little factual basis.

It seems to me that man evolved government for a reason, and that that reason still exists, so we still have government. When that need is filled by something else, we won't need government any more.

I heard an interesting theory relating to world unification/end to global wars. The argument of peace by globalization. That is to say, when your countrie's factories are in Korea, you wouldn't want to bomb them, because it hurts your economy. Luckily, the same is true of every other nation, and everyone is invested in everyone else. It's similar to this thing the spartans did with athens, to prevent the constant fighting, which was an exchange of children. Sparta wouldn't attack athens because the children of Sparta were being raised there, and vice versa. Like voluntary hostages. Athens and Sparta: The Economic Version seems a little farfetched to me, but it's a cool idea, I feel.

Maybe this game will not come to reality. Since there are friendly people and egocentric people. Friendly people will not oppose to egocentric people and egocentric people will not oppose to friendly people. Only the egocentric people will fight with other egocentric people and friendly people will socialize with other friendly people. So lets just keep the conflicts in CC by battling every player on the list.

It certainly won't become reality... The real world doesn't work on such partisan dice

Guiscard: Sure it does, Vietnam, Afghanistan, (for the Russians too) Iraq. The dice is culture. Invade someplace nice and friendly, you win with a 2:1 advantage. Invade a place where the children hate you, you'll lose going in 15:1.

Tommy, you disappoint me. Anyone who is named after the famous Mr. Hobbes should take their disdain for the human race much to seriously to allow the thought of true world unification to occur.

Just as I saw that name "Tommy Hobbes", I thought we'd see a real ding-dong going here - what with your namesake being such a statist and all - but you're far too polite.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:Now tell, asshole, who the f*ck would try and mug you if you have a pistol hidden somewhere in you jacket?

The mugger (or group of muggers) standing behind you with guns already drawn would probably be willing to try it.

MR. Nate wrote:

Kay wrote:A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

dam i wanted to quote men in black

Jolly Roger wrote:

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:Now tell, asshole, who the f*ck would try and mug you if you have a pistol hidden somewhere in you jacket?

The mugger (or group of muggers) standing behind you with guns already drawn would probably be willing to try it.

And if there were others around similarly armed, knowing that they could potentially be the next victim, do you think they would stand there and do nothing?


You people need to come up with some harder questions. This is all pretty easy.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote:

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:Now tell, asshole, who the f*ck would try and mug you if you have a pistol hidden somewhere in you jacket?

The mugger (or group of muggers) standing behind you with guns already drawn would probably be willing to try it.

And if there were others around similarly armed, knowing that they could potentially be the next victim, do you think they would stand there and do nothing?
You people need to come up with some harder questions. This is all pretty easy.

I did not ask you a question. I answered one and you responded by posing another question. Honestly, having a conversation with you is total anarchy.

However, let me expand my answer. What if the mugger
a) is suicidal;
b) is a certifiable lunatic;
c) believes himself invincible (due to being young and naive);
d) is wearing body armor;
e) has planned ahead and attacks in areas where there are no bystanders;
f) is all of the above?

The principles upon which the non-aggression axiom appears to rest are strength, fear and self-preservation. In essence, it's just a fancy name for the law of the jungle. In the scenario you present, the key to controlling the situation is organization. A well-organized group of muggers, for instance, will be better armed and better prepared to prevail in an armed conflict with a bunch of regular joes who are walking around with no expectation of a mugging occuring and who could only respond in a helter skelter manner whereby they'd probably be just as likely to kill one another with crossfire as they would the muggers. A really well-organized group of muggers would ensure that there were no regular joes walking around in the area anyway.

Finally, consider the human beast. We are not as fast or strong as our animalian cousins; we don't have claws, talons, beaks or the teeth to be formidable foes in an evolutionary struggle against other groups of mammals. IMO, our success is due to our ability to form societies and use technology. If this is the case, the early humans were selected (if you buy into natural selection) based on their tendancy to form into groups as well as the success of those groups. As noted above, the most well-organized group is often the most successful. Therefore, one might conclude that the development of highly organized societies is 1) necessary to the success of our species and 2) hard wired into our brains just as wolves instinctively pack, birds instinctively flock and fish instinctively school. If there is no government, how do you propose that this organization be maintained? Instinctively? Can there be organization without rules? If so, how? If not, then who makes the rules without any form of government in place and who enforces them?

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:If you have a population that is armed to the teeth and an understanding of the Non-Aggression Axiom, what would go wrong?

Oh yeah, I also mentioned technology in my last post. Let's say some dude or group of people invent a technology which is vastly superior to the weapon technology the rest of the population is armed with. What is to prevent the people who have access to this technology from imposing their will on the rest of the population? What good does it do to be armed to the teeth if you're armed to the teeth with useless outdated crap?