Is anarchy a bad system?
0
Dark_Soul48 wrote...
No anarchy is not a bad system at all....I mean you can love your country...but hate your government. There is nothing wrong with that...well as long as you don't become a rightwing anarchist. Then you might as well be considered a terrorist. But as for me...well being a soldier in the army...I don't completely hate my government, but I love my country.My family was in Germany during WW2, they did not agree with their government, they down right hated it. But they still loved their country.
0
dragonsheart967 wrote...
lordisgaea3 wrote...
dragonsheart967 wrote...
And in your later post, no, anarchist do believe in a government, just one that we find very difficult to see functional.
Let's forget the first point since it's irrelevant , but the second interest me a lot . Normaly , anarchists wish to live in a total utopic world where all humans coexist with no gouvernement at all where everyone has suprem freedom . If it's not that , then what would you like the world to be as an anarchist ? What is this non-functional gouvernment you are talking abouth ?
I never said I was an anarchist. I just found it interesting how popular belief made out anarchy as total chaos and "the devils playground".
Anyway, from what I gathered from the guy who informed me, the more organized anarchists believe in a direct democracy on a community level. Pretty much, they believe that there would still be a government. The thing anarchists oppose isn't government, but rather leaders. Anarchy is a very old concept, and was around since the time of hierarchy, where a king was superior just by birthright.
In short, these people disagree with domination, where one person is 'better', or 'dominates' over another. This very ideal goes for a large variety of things, such as racism, sexism, exploitation, and banditry.
Yeah but the problem is that the only way we could come to such a system is by reducing the number of humans . Maybe if we killed 99% of the human population but even then we would start to procreate again and the problem would just come back .
I love and hate anarchists at the same time . I believe that it is the only way that real freedom and democracy can exist but at the same time they can't come up with a way of realising it ...
0
lordisgaea3 wrote...
dragonsheart967 wrote...
lordisgaea3 wrote...
dragonsheart967 wrote...
And in your later post, no, anarchist do believe in a government, just one that we find very difficult to see functional.
Let's forget the first point since it's irrelevant , but the second interest me a lot . Normaly , anarchists wish to live in a total utopic world where all humans coexist with no gouvernement at all where everyone has suprem freedom . If it's not that , then what would you like the world to be as an anarchist ? What is this non-functional gouvernment you are talking abouth ?
I never said I was an anarchist. I just found it interesting how popular belief made out anarchy as total chaos and "the devils playground".
Anyway, from what I gathered from the guy who informed me, the more organized anarchists believe in a direct democracy on a community level. Pretty much, they believe that there would still be a government. The thing anarchists oppose isn't government, but rather leaders. Anarchy is a very old concept, and was around since the time of hierarchy, where a king was superior just by birthright.
In short, these people disagree with domination, where one person is 'better', or 'dominates' over another. This very ideal goes for a large variety of things, such as racism, sexism, exploitation, and banditry.
Yeah but the problem is that the only way we could come to such a system is by reducing the number of humans . Maybe if we killed 99% of the human population but even then we would start to procreate again and the problem would just come back .
I love and hate anarchists at the same time . I believe that it is the only way that real freedom and democracy can exist but at the same time they can't come up with a way of realising it ...
Okay, I have to ask why you made the statement of killing off mostly everyone. You make it sound like the entire world has to abide by this single government.
And I don't think it has to be a system that has to be regulated over a large area. I mean, when the guy wrote community, I imagine that an small area would regulate itself with the help of the proper education of how the system would be set up(Lets face it, we take an idea, there's gonna be a huge underbelly making it work).
Though, I'm not arrogant to see how the community level idea could easily be faultered.
0
Anarchy isn't a bad system as there is no system present to be "bad". What there is is the false belief that everyone is presently equal which drives even the most civil of aspirations to the present notion of anarchy.
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
I think in order for anarchy to work, we would first have to get rid of the monetary system. Money is the epitome of power, if you can somehow get rid of that system and replace it with something better (good luck with that) then anarchy may have a chance.
0
dragonsheart967 wrote...
lordisgaea3 wrote...
dragonsheart967 wrote...
lordisgaea3 wrote...
dragonsheart967 wrote...
And in your later post, no, anarchist do believe in a government, just one that we find very difficult to see functional.
Let's forget the first point since it's irrelevant , but the second interest me a lot . Normaly , anarchists wish to live in a total utopic world where all humans coexist with no gouvernement at all where everyone has suprem freedom . If it's not that , then what would you like the world to be as an anarchist ? What is this non-functional gouvernment you are talking abouth ?
I never said I was an anarchist. I just found it interesting how popular belief made out anarchy as total chaos and "the devils playground".
Anyway, from what I gathered from the guy who informed me, the more organized anarchists believe in a direct democracy on a community level. Pretty much, they believe that there would still be a government. The thing anarchists oppose isn't government, but rather leaders. Anarchy is a very old concept, and was around since the time of hierarchy, where a king was superior just by birthright.
In short, these people disagree with domination, where one person is 'better', or 'dominates' over another. This very ideal goes for a large variety of things, such as racism, sexism, exploitation, and banditry.
Yeah but the problem is that the only way we could come to such a system is by reducing the number of humans . Maybe if we killed 99% of the human population but even then we would start to procreate again and the problem would just come back .
I love and hate anarchists at the same time . I believe that it is the only way that real freedom and democracy can exist but at the same time they can't come up with a way of realising it ...
Okay, I have to ask why you made the statement of killing off mostly everyone. You make it sound like the entire world has to abide by this single government.
And I don't think it has to be a system that has to be regulated over a large area. I mean, when the guy wrote community, I imagine that an small area would regulate itself with the help of the proper education of how the system would be set up(Lets face it, we take an idea, there's gonna be a huge underbelly making it work).
Though, I'm not arrogant to see how the community level idea could easily be faultered.
The reason why i said that is : the idea of a community based system works with a low amouth of people inside and outside of it. Imagine a second , right now , if you are a contry of 100 people , let's say 10 guys defend your fucking utopic contry . How long do you think it will take before it get destroyed or assimilated ? But after thinking abouth it , the problem is still there in fact , even if it was like this everywhere , people would start doign alliances and becoming bigger again ... The probleme is humans , not the number of humans ...
0
lordisgaea3 wrote...
dragonsheart967 wrote...
lordisgaea3 wrote...
dragonsheart967 wrote...
lordisgaea3 wrote...
dragonsheart967 wrote...
And in your later post, no, anarchist do believe in a government, just one that we find very difficult to see functional.
Let's forget the first point since it's irrelevant , but the second interest me a lot . Normaly , anarchists wish to live in a total utopic world where all humans coexist with no gouvernement at all where everyone has suprem freedom . If it's not that , then what would you like the world to be as an anarchist ? What is this non-functional gouvernment you are talking abouth ?
I never said I was an anarchist. I just found it interesting how popular belief made out anarchy as total chaos and "the devils playground".
Anyway, from what I gathered from the guy who informed me, the more organized anarchists believe in a direct democracy on a community level. Pretty much, they believe that there would still be a government. The thing anarchists oppose isn't government, but rather leaders. Anarchy is a very old concept, and was around since the time of hierarchy, where a king was superior just by birthright.
In short, these people disagree with domination, where one person is 'better', or 'dominates' over another. This very ideal goes for a large variety of things, such as racism, sexism, exploitation, and banditry.
Yeah but the problem is that the only way we could come to such a system is by reducing the number of humans . Maybe if we killed 99% of the human population but even then we would start to procreate again and the problem would just come back .
I love and hate anarchists at the same time . I believe that it is the only way that real freedom and democracy can exist but at the same time they can't come up with a way of realising it ...
Okay, I have to ask why you made the statement of killing off mostly everyone. You make it sound like the entire world has to abide by this single government.
And I don't think it has to be a system that has to be regulated over a large area. I mean, when the guy wrote community, I imagine that an small area would regulate itself with the help of the proper education of how the system would be set up(Lets face it, we take an idea, there's gonna be a huge underbelly making it work).
Though, I'm not arrogant to see how the community level idea could easily be faultered.
The reason why i said that is : the idea of a community based system works with a low amouth of people inside and outside of it. Imagine a second , right now , if you are a contry of 100 people , let's say 10 guys defend your fucking utopic contry . How long do you think it will take before it get destroyed or assimilated ? But after thinking abouth it , the problem is still there in fact , even if it was like this everywhere , people would start doign alliances and becoming bigger again ... The probleme is humans , not the number of humans ...
Is it just me, or are you getting agitated or something? I don't really wanna continue if people start letting their tempers flare.
0
dragonsheart967 wrote...
lordisgaea3 wrote...
dragonsheart967 wrote...
lordisgaea3 wrote...
dragonsheart967 wrote...
lordisgaea3 wrote...
dragonsheart967 wrote...
And in your later post, no, anarchist do believe in a government, just one that we find very difficult to see functional.
Let's forget the first point since it's irrelevant , but the second interest me a lot . Normaly , anarchists wish to live in a total utopic world where all humans coexist with no gouvernement at all where everyone has suprem freedom . If it's not that , then what would you like the world to be as an anarchist ? What is this non-functional gouvernment you are talking abouth ?
I never said I was an anarchist. I just found it interesting how popular belief made out anarchy as total chaos and "the devils playground".
Anyway, from what I gathered from the guy who informed me, the more organized anarchists believe in a direct democracy on a community level. Pretty much, they believe that there would still be a government. The thing anarchists oppose isn't government, but rather leaders. Anarchy is a very old concept, and was around since the time of hierarchy, where a king was superior just by birthright.
In short, these people disagree with domination, where one person is 'better', or 'dominates' over another. This very ideal goes for a large variety of things, such as racism, sexism, exploitation, and banditry.
Yeah but the problem is that the only way we could come to such a system is by reducing the number of humans . Maybe if we killed 99% of the human population but even then we would start to procreate again and the problem would just come back .
I love and hate anarchists at the same time . I believe that it is the only way that real freedom and democracy can exist but at the same time they can't come up with a way of realising it ...
Okay, I have to ask why you made the statement of killing off mostly everyone. You make it sound like the entire world has to abide by this single government.
And I don't think it has to be a system that has to be regulated over a large area. I mean, when the guy wrote community, I imagine that an small area would regulate itself with the help of the proper education of how the system would be set up(Lets face it, we take an idea, there's gonna be a huge underbelly making it work).
Though, I'm not arrogant to see how the community level idea could easily be faultered.
The reason why i said that is : the idea of a community based system works with a low amouth of people inside and outside of it. Imagine a second , right now , if you are a contry of 100 people , let's say 10 guys defend your fucking utopic contry . How long do you think it will take before it get destroyed or assimilated ? But after thinking abouth it , the problem is still there in fact , even if it was like this everywhere , people would start doign alliances and becoming bigger again ... The probleme is humans , not the number of humans ...
Is it just me, or are you getting agitated or something? I don't really wanna continue if people start letting their tempers flare.
Is it because i said fucking ? I just swear a lot :/
0
FinalBoss wrote...
I think in order for anarchy to work, we would first have to get rid of the monetary system. Money is the epitome of power, if you can somehow get rid of that system and replace it with something better (good luck with that) then anarchy may have a chance.
0
Aleister Crowley wrote...
I am not an Anarchist in your sense of the word: your brain is too dense for any known explosive to affect it. the biggest obstacles of anarchy are ignorance and greed. it can never be so long as there are things like religion(ignorance) and capitalism(greed). once people are capable of getting along with out trying to either take advantage of, or force their personal views on each other, anarchy will just happen.
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Sipura wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
I think in order for anarchy to work, we would first have to get rid of the monetary system. Money is the epitome of power, if you can somehow get rid of that system and replace it with something better (good luck with that) then anarchy may have a chance. Well, what about a system that gives people food, shelter and other benefits based on their abilities or working class alone? For example, let's say there are 4 ranks. The first rank is rank D, the second is rank C, the third is rank B and the last is rank A. People get a special ID card that allows them to purchase a certain number/value of things based on their rank.
Rank D is for people who have no job. A person who is rank D can be either children or just simply an unemployed adult. These people get no shelter unless they have special needs. Otherwise, they'll have to go to the usual homeless shelters (or of course live with parents). Food is free, but people of rank D can only get a limited number of items per week. Same goes for public transportation, only a limited number of rides per week. They can get a few new clothes per year, but not many. Other than this, there aren't many benefits towards being a rank D.
I'd go through the other ranks, but I really don't feel like going into that much detail, besides I'm sure you get the idea. The higher the rank, the more benefits you get. Sure the system is flawed, but I would take that over the monetary system any day.
0
FinalBoss wrote...
Sipura wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
I think in order for anarchy to work, we would first have to get rid of the monetary system. Money is the epitome of power, if you can somehow get rid of that system and replace it with something better (good luck with that) then anarchy may have a chance. Well, what about a system that gives people food, shelter and other benefits based on their abilities or working class alone? For example, let's say there are 4 ranks. The first rank is rank D, the second is rank C, the third is rank B and the last is rank A. People get a special ID card that allows them to purchase a certain number/value of things based on their rank.
Rank D is for people who have no job. A person who is rank D can be either children or just simply an unemployed adult. These people get no shelter unless they have special needs. Otherwise, they'll have to go to the usual homeless shelters (or of course live with parents). Food is free, but people of rank D can only get a limited number of items per week. Same goes for public transportation, only a limited number of rides per week. They can get a few new clothes per year, but not many. Other than this, there aren't many benefits towards being a rank D.
I'd go through the other ranks, but I really don't feel like going into that much detail, besides I'm sure you get the idea. The higher the rank, the more benefits you get. Sure the system is flawed, but I would take that over the monetary system any day.
Well this system is merit system and of course it also had is flaws as people will not care the others anymore and of course those people on rank A or B will become those people who will discriminate people on rank C and D. This system will also cause the strong(A&B) to be afraid of (C&D) as they can overtake their position in the future.
0
Anarchism is an utopia, can only be reached if All the people living in it are what is called "good". Sadly, such thing is impossible in this era, mainly because human nature is being "selfish and evil". Of course, there are good people, as there are "bad" people. Note that "good" and "evil" are a very subjectived terms, each one of you has a different approach on what these terms means.
0
FinalBoss wrote...
Sipura wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
I think in order for anarchy to work, we would first have to get rid of the monetary system. Money is the epitome of power, if you can somehow get rid of that system and replace it with something better (good luck with that) then anarchy may have a chance. Well, what about a system that gives people food, shelter and other benefits based on their abilities or working class alone? For example, let's say there are 4 ranks. The first rank is rank D, the second is rank C, the third is rank B and the last is rank A. People get a special ID card that allows them to purchase a certain number/value of things based on their rank.
Rank D is for people who have no job. A person who is rank D can be either children or just simply an unemployed adult. These people get no shelter unless they have special needs. Otherwise, they'll have to go to the usual homeless shelters (or of course live with parents). Food is free, but people of rank D can only get a limited number of items per week. Same goes for public transportation, only a limited number of rides per week. They can get a few new clothes per year, but not many. Other than this, there aren't many benefits towards being a rank D.
I'd go through the other ranks, but I really don't feel like going into that much detail, besides I'm sure you get the idea. The higher the rank, the more benefits you get. Sure the system is flawed, but I would take that over the monetary system any day.
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Sipura wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Sipura wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
I think in order for anarchy to work, we would first have to get rid of the monetary system. Money is the epitome of power, if you can somehow get rid of that system and replace it with something better (good luck with that) then anarchy may have a chance. Well, what about a system that gives people food, shelter and other benefits based on their abilities or working class alone? For example, let's say there are 4 ranks. The first rank is rank D, the second is rank C, the third is rank B and the last is rank A. People get a special ID card that allows them to purchase a certain number/value of things based on their rank.
Rank D is for people who have no job. A person who is rank D can be either children or just simply an unemployed adult. These people get no shelter unless they have special needs. Otherwise, they'll have to go to the usual homeless shelters (or of course live with parents). Food is free, but people of rank D can only get a limited number of items per week. Same goes for public transportation, only a limited number of rides per week. They can get a few new clothes per year, but not many. Other than this, there aren't many benefits towards being a rank D.
I'd go through the other ranks, but I really don't feel like going into that much detail, besides I'm sure you get the idea. The higher the rank, the more benefits you get. Sure the system is flawed, but I would take that over the monetary system any day.
Well before anyone knocks it, there should first be experiments done with the system. And what makes you so sure there would be rebellions? As you said before, its no different than the class system we already have except it isn't based on how much money you make, but rather how much experience and skill you have. Also, unlike with the monetary system, no one goes hungry.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
A person is smart.
People are stupid, panicky creatures.
Anarchy would never work as a system because it holds for the opposite.
People are stupid, panicky creatures.
Anarchy would never work as a system because it holds for the opposite.
0
As it have been said: It would never work.
In theory, anarchy, like any other societal concept is not a bad idea. The problem with anarchy, just like with every other political point of view is that it will only work for a larger society if everyone is agreeing on the same course of action, and sticking to it. Then everything would work just flawlessly. Sadly, that'll never happen.
In theory, anarchy, like any other societal concept is not a bad idea. The problem with anarchy, just like with every other political point of view is that it will only work for a larger society if everyone is agreeing on the same course of action, and sticking to it. Then everything would work just flawlessly. Sadly, that'll never happen.
0
FinalBoss wrote...
Sipura wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Sipura wrote...
[quote="FinalBoss"]I think in order for anarchy to work, we would first have to get rid of the monetary system. Money is the epitome of power, if you can somehow get rid of that system and replace it with something better (good luck with that) then anarchy may have a chance. Well, what about a system that gives people food, shelter and other benefits based on their abilities or working class alone? For example, let's say there are 4 ranks. The first rank is rank D, the second is rank C, the third is rank B and the last is rank A. People get a special ID card that allows them to purchase a certain number/value of things based on their rank.
Rank D is for people who have no job. A person who is rank D can be either children or just simply an unemployed adult. These people get no shelter unless they have special needs. Otherwise, they'll have to go to the usual homeless shelters (or of course live with parents). Food is free, but people of rank D can only get a limited number of items per week. Same goes for public transportation, only a limited number of rides per week. They can get a few new clothes per year, but not many. Other than this, there aren't many benefits towards being a rank D.
I'd go through the other ranks, but I really don't feel like going into that much detail, besides I'm sure you get the idea. The higher the rank, the more benefits you get. Sure the system is flawed, but I would take that over the monetary system any day.
What abouth businesses ? I mean if everyone has the same maximum sallary (A) , people like bill gates would never accept to have the same sallary than the guy who grow oranges . Why would he creates his compagny in the first place ? Why would anyone create a compagny ? It's competition and greed that make people want to start compagnies and make them as big as possible ...Without those two things that you eliminate with your system , business stops and without business there's no system at all ...
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
lordisgaea3 wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Sipura wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Sipura wrote...
[quote="FinalBoss"]I think in order for anarchy to work, we would first have to get rid of the monetary system. Money is the epitome of power, if you can somehow get rid of that system and replace it with something better (good luck with that) then anarchy may have a chance. Well, what about a system that gives people food, shelter and other benefits based on their abilities or working class alone? For example, let's say there are 4 ranks. The first rank is rank D, the second is rank C, the third is rank B and the last is rank A. People get a special ID card that allows them to purchase a certain number/value of things based on their rank.
Rank D is for people who have no job. A person who is rank D can be either children or just simply an unemployed adult. These people get no shelter unless they have special needs. Otherwise, they'll have to go to the usual homeless shelters (or of course live with parents). Food is free, but people of rank D can only get a limited number of items per week. Same goes for public transportation, only a limited number of rides per week. They can get a few new clothes per year, but not many. Other than this, there aren't many benefits towards being a rank D.
I'd go through the other ranks, but I really don't feel like going into that much detail, besides I'm sure you get the idea. The higher the rank, the more benefits you get. Sure the system is flawed, but I would take that over the monetary system any day.
What abouth businesses ? I mean if everyone has the same maximum sallary (A) , people like bill gates would never accept to have the same sallary than the guy who grow oranges . Why would he creates his compagny in the first place ? Why would anyone create a compagny ? It's competition and greed that make people want to start compagnies and make them as big as possible ...Without those two things that you eliminate with your system , business stops and without business there's no system at all ...
I don't know about that, I'd like to believe that the elimination of money would give people a chance to explore their talents and contribute to society at a more efficient pace. There wouldn't be anything holding anyone back. The reason why we have technology is because human beings wanted convenience in their lives, so we strive to make living convenient. That much won't change regardless of what system we use to keep order. People aren't as greedy and corrupt as you make it seem. The only reason why people act greedy in the first place is because the monetary system reinforces the notion.
