Anarchy

[gipper]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

I think if our govt was as small as it WAS SUPPOSED TO BE we probably wouldnt even be complaining about it.
I have always felt like SOMEONE would try to take control. Most humans REQUIRE someone to tell them what to do. That could cause ALOT of problems.
I dont wish for anarchy. I dont wish for bloated govt. I wish for our country to be run the way it was supposed to be.

Agreed. If the government followed the Constitution to a T, then we would have limited government. We don't.

Madison assumed that the Constitution with its checks and balances, would prevent government abuses. Today we have a central government that has coalesced into one big tyranny, designed to prey on the people...there are no checks and balances.

 

[fncceo]

But a society that can't protect property and persons is inherently more dangerous.

That get's to the heart of it: the assumption the compulsive state government is the only way to protect people and property. That's what anarchists are challenging.

If there's another way besides laws and the ability to enforce them to protect people and property, I'd love to here it.

Please provide details.

 

[gipper]

But a society that can't protect property and persons is inherently more dangerous.

That get's to the heart of it: the assumption the compulsive state government is the only way to protect people and property. That's what anarchists are challenging.

If there's another way besides laws and the ability to enforce them to protect people and property, I'd love to here it.

Please provide details.

If you think the State is doing a good job of protecting the people, you need to think again.

 

[fncceo]

But a society that can't protect property and persons is inherently more dangerous.

That get's to the heart of it: the assumption the compulsive state government is the only way to protect people and property. That's what anarchists are challenging.

If there's another way besides laws and the ability to enforce them to protect people and property, I'd love to here it.

Please provide details.

If you think the State is doing a good job of protecting the people, you need to think again.

In fact, I don't. But I don't see Feudalism as a viable alternative.

 

[gipper]

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society.
There is much to fear from a state run society.

Whether a stateless society or state run society,
both involve humans... and that's the problem

Our system of government is not the problem,
the people within our system of government, are the problem.
And, really, they are only part of the problem....
We the people, collectively, are the biggest problem,
for not holding these politicians accountable!

There is a problem with your statement.

While I agree there are always problems with both, one causes far greater problems than the other. There is no way in a stateless society that mass death and destruction can occur. Do you see the difference?

It is akin to asserting a hunger lion is just as much a threat to you, as an angry ant.

 

[gipper]

But a society that can't protect property and persons is inherently more dangerous.

That get's to the heart of it: the assumption the compulsive state government is the only way to protect people and property. That's what anarchists are challenging.

If there's another way besides laws and the ability to enforce them to protect people and property, I'd love to here it.

Please provide details.

If you think the State is doing a good job of protecting the people, you need to think again.

In fact, I don't. But I don't see Feudalism as a viable alternative.

I will take feudalism over what we have today, any day.

and besides, anarchy is not Feudalism.

 

[fncceo]

There is no way in a stateless society that mass death and destruction can occur.

Again .... really?

 

[fncceo]

But a society that can't protect property and persons is inherently more dangerous.

That get's to the heart of it: the assumption the compulsive state government is the only way to protect people and property. That's what anarchists are challenging.

If there's another way besides laws and the ability to enforce them to protect people and property, I'd love to here it.

Please provide details.

If you think the State is doing a good job of protecting the people, you need to think again.

In fact, I don't. But I don't see Feudalism as a viable alternative.

I will take feudalism over what we have today, any day.

and besides, anarchy is not Feudalism.

Feudalism is the inevitable result of Anarchy. The strong will prey on the weak and establish their own state.

 

[Rustic]

Socialism will breed anarchy, because Socialism has no foundation to stand on. Socialism is drawn to by delusional little weak minded progressives... fact

 

[fncceo]

I will take feudalism over what we have today,

You say that because you believe you'll be a lord and not a serf. But only the man with the most guns becomes a lord in a lawless society.

 

[SavannahMann]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

Well, since we are redefining words to mean things that they really don't, let me say that for the purposes of this discussion, we are redefining the word Idiot to mean a person who has had an idea. Using that definition, you are an idiot.

The problem with your redefined word idea, is not just that it means what it doesn't mean, but that it doesn't work. There will be inevitable disagreements between people, and those inevitable disagreements will need to be judged by someone. In the old Testiment, it was the priests or Kings, or ministers, later Judges, that decided what was right. King Solomon identified the mother of a baby as one example.

But there is always someone in charge. Either through Devine right, as in a king, or chief, or through selection of the people.

Let's say your loose association of people who agree to live together in some sort of harmony does exist. Further lets say that two people have a disagreement about a trade, or a deal, or something. Who decides which party is wrong, or right? Do you put it up before the people to decide? Then it's a popularity contest, and the more charming fellow will be victorious.

John Roberts when he was being considered for the Supreme Court gave a great answer. He was asked if he would side with the little guy, or the big guy when deciding cases. John Roberts said that he may want to side with the little guy, but the deciding factor was the Constitution. The Constitution may say that the big guy is the one who is right, in which case the big guy would win. That is the way it is supposed to work, and I know we all have multiple examples of that not happening but for the purposes of this discussion that is determined to be irrelevant. So you may not bring it up.

I might well support a number of reforms. If we decided that our Representatives in Washington would be 535 randomly selected people. It could be like Jury Duty. Imagine, in September you walk to your Mailbox and then see the hated envelope. "God Damn It." You shout. "I just got selected for Congress."

Several alternates would be named, and you could go and complain to the judge that you can't do Congress because your Wife needs you.

At the end of your term, your duty as a Congressperson is ended. Then you move along and get back to your life, and some other poor schmuck gets stuck with his turn in Congress.

Each district could send someone. There could be houses set aside and you go to the assigned house for the district you live in, like Public Housing. A community that you live in with all the other congress critters. At the end of your term, you move out, and the next poor soul moves in.

Imagine the long faces of the people as they arrive, and the happy faces as they are leaving. You get the representative for the term, and you don't get professionals who are going to be wheeling and dealing to make themselves rich, or powerful.

But redefining a word to mean something other than what it does mean isn't the answer. Especially when there are already words that describe the type of society you envision. The better word would be Commune. You could set up what they described in Monty Python. You could be Dennis.



As I said, using my new definition, you've had an idea. So you're an idiot.

 

[fncceo]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

Well, since we are redefining words to mean things that they really don't, let me say that for the purposes of this discussion, we are redefining the word Idiot to mean a person who has had an idea. Using that definition, you are an idiot.

The problem with your redefined word idea, is not just that it means what it doesn't mean, but that it doesn't work. There will be inevitable disagreements between people, and those inevitable disagreements will need to be judged by someone. In the old Testiment, it was the priests or Kings, or ministers, later Judges, that decided what was right. King Solomon identified the mother of a baby as one example.

But there is always someone in charge. Either through Devine right, as in a king, or chief, or through selection of the people.

Let's say your loose association of people who agree to live together in some sort of harmony does exist. Further lets say that two people have a disagreement about a trade, or a deal, or something. Who decides which party is wrong, or right? Do you put it up before the people to decide? Then it's a popularity contest, and the more charming fellow will be victorious.

John Roberts when he was being considered for the Supreme Court gave a great answer. He was asked if he would side with the little guy, or the big guy when deciding cases. John Roberts said that he may want to side with the little guy, but the deciding factor was the Constitution. The Constitution may say that the big guy is the one who is right, in which case the big guy would win. That is the way it is supposed to work, and I know we all have multiple examples of that not happening but for the purposes of this discussion that is determined to be irrelevant. So you may not bring it up.

I might well support a number of reforms. If we decided that our Representatives in Washington would be 535 randomly selected people. It could be like Jury Duty. Imagine, in September you walk to your Mailbox and then see the hated envelope. "God Damn It." You shout. "I just got selected for Congress."

Several alternates would be named, and you could go and complain to the judge that you can't do Congress because your Wife needs you.

At the end of your term, your duty as a Congressperson is ended. Then you move along and get back to your life, and some other poor schmuck gets stuck with his turn in Congress.

Each district could send someone. There could be houses set aside and you go to the assigned house for the district you live in, like Public Housing. A community that you live in with all the other congress critters. At the end of your term, you move out, and the next poor soul moves in.

Imagine the long faces of the people as they arrive, and the happy faces as they are leaving. You get the representative for the term, and you don't get professionals who are going to be wheeling and dealing to make themselves rich, or powerful.

But redefining a word to mean something other than what it does mean isn't the answer. Especially when there are already words that describe the type of society you envision. The better word would be Commune. You could set up what they described in Monty Python. You could be Dennis.



As I said, using my new definition, you've had an idea. So you're an idiot.

Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

 

[gipper]

There is no way in a stateless society that mass death and destruction can occur.

Again .... really?

Yeah...a stateless society can murder 262,000,000 people, like state run societies did in the last century.

Really?

 

[gipper]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

Well, since we are redefining words to mean things that they really don't, let me say that for the purposes of this discussion, we are redefining the word Idiot to mean a person who has had an idea. Using that definition, you are an idiot.

The problem with your redefined word idea, is not just that it means what it doesn't mean, but that it doesn't work. There will be inevitable disagreements between people, and those inevitable disagreements will need to be judged by someone. In the old Testiment, it was the priests or Kings, or ministers, later Judges, that decided what was right. King Solomon identified the mother of a baby as one example.

But there is always someone in charge. Either through Devine right, as in a king, or chief, or through selection of the people.

Let's say your loose association of people who agree to live together in some sort of harmony does exist. Further lets say that two people have a disagreement about a trade, or a deal, or something. Who decides which party is wrong, or right? Do you put it up before the people to decide? Then it's a popularity contest, and the more charming fellow will be victorious.

John Roberts when he was being considered for the Supreme Court gave a great answer. He was asked if he would side with the little guy, or the big guy when deciding cases. John Roberts said that he may want to side with the little guy, but the deciding factor was the Constitution. The Constitution may say that the big guy is the one who is right, in which case the big guy would win. That is the way it is supposed to work, and I know we all have multiple examples of that not happening but for the purposes of this discussion that is determined to be irrelevant. So you may not bring it up.

I might well support a number of reforms. If we decided that our Representatives in Washington would be 535 randomly selected people. It could be like Jury Duty. Imagine, in September you walk to your Mailbox and then see the hated envelope. "God Damn It." You shout. "I just got selected for Congress."

Several alternates would be named, and you could go and complain to the judge that you can't do Congress because your Wife needs you.

At the end of your term, your duty as a Congressperson is ended. Then you move along and get back to your life, and some other poor schmuck gets stuck with his turn in Congress.

Each district could send someone. There could be houses set aside and you go to the assigned house for the district you live in, like Public Housing. A community that you live in with all the other congress critters. At the end of your term, you move out, and the next poor soul moves in.

Imagine the long faces of the people as they arrive, and the happy faces as they are leaving. You get the representative for the term, and you don't get professionals who are going to be wheeling and dealing to make themselves rich, or powerful.

But redefining a word to mean something other than what it does mean isn't the answer. Especially when there are already words that describe the type of society you envision. The better word would be Commune. You could set up what they described in Monty Python. You could be Dennis.



As I said, using my new definition, you've had an idea. So you're an idiot.

The Random House Dictionary: definition of anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

Now don't you feel STUPID?

 

[fncceo]

There is no way in a stateless society that mass death and destruction can occur.

Again .... really?

Yeah...a stateless society can murder 262,000,000 people, like state run societies did in the last century.

Really?

A lawless society will have no hospitals, no farms, no protection from the elements for the majority of the population.

None of those things exist in a society where at anytime someone can come and loot what you've created.

People in Hunter-gather societies tend not to have long lifespans.

 

[Rustic]

There is no way in a stateless society that mass death and destruction can occur.

Again .... really?

Yeah...a stateless society can murder 262,000,000 people, like state run societies did in the last century.

Really?

A lawless society will have no hospitals, no farms, no protection from the elements for the majority of the population.

None of those things exist in a society where at anytime someone can come and loot what you've created.

People in Hunter-gather societies tend not to have long lifespans.

Actually a capitalist republic has all of those things, but the difference is they are in the right proportion unlike they are in Socialism.

 

[fncceo]

Defined: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I know the statists don't think it possible or workable. However, a stateless society is conceivable and far better than the state run society we have today.

Nothing has caused more death, suffering, and destruction than the state throughout human history. So, logically, why continue something so heinous?

There is NOTHING to fear from a stateless society. There is much to fear from a state run society.



...okay...now you can call me CRAZY!

PS. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos.

Well, since we are redefining words to mean things that they really don't, let me say that for the purposes of this discussion, we are redefining the word Idiot to mean a person who has had an idea. Using that definition, you are an idiot.

The problem with your redefined word idea, is not just that it means what it doesn't mean, but that it doesn't work. There will be inevitable disagreements between people, and those inevitable disagreements will need to be judged by someone. In the old Testiment, it was the priests or Kings, or ministers, later Judges, that decided what was right. King Solomon identified the mother of a baby as one example.

But there is always someone in charge. Either through Devine right, as in a king, or chief, or through selection of the people.

Let's say your loose association of people who agree to live together in some sort of harmony does exist. Further lets say that two people have a disagreement about a trade, or a deal, or something. Who decides which party is wrong, or right? Do you put it up before the people to decide? Then it's a popularity contest, and the more charming fellow will be victorious.

John Roberts when he was being considered for the Supreme Court gave a great answer. He was asked if he would side with the little guy, or the big guy when deciding cases. John Roberts said that he may want to side with the little guy, but the deciding factor was the Constitution. The Constitution may say that the big guy is the one who is right, in which case the big guy would win. That is the way it is supposed to work, and I know we all have multiple examples of that not happening but for the purposes of this discussion that is determined to be irrelevant. So you may not bring it up.

I might well support a number of reforms. If we decided that our Representatives in Washington would be 535 randomly selected people. It could be like Jury Duty. Imagine, in September you walk to your Mailbox and then see the hated envelope. "God Damn It." You shout. "I just got selected for Congress."

Several alternates would be named, and you could go and complain to the judge that you can't do Congress because your Wife needs you.

At the end of your term, your duty as a Congressperson is ended. Then you move along and get back to your life, and some other poor schmuck gets stuck with his turn in Congress.

Each district could send someone. There could be houses set aside and you go to the assigned house for the district you live in, like Public Housing. A community that you live in with all the other congress critters. At the end of your term, you move out, and the next poor soul moves in.

Imagine the long faces of the people as they arrive, and the happy faces as they are leaving. You get the representative for the term, and you don't get professionals who are going to be wheeling and dealing to make themselves rich, or powerful.

But redefining a word to mean something other than what it does mean isn't the answer. Especially when there are already words that describe the type of society you envision. The better word would be Commune. You could set up what they described in Monty Python. You could be Dennis.



As I said, using my new definition, you've had an idea. So you're an idiot.

The Random House Dictionary: definition of anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

Now don't you feel STUPID?

You've already proved that anarchy isn't a viable basis for society. Your inability to explain how individuals are protected in your system has led you to lash out verbally.

If you can't act in a cooperative manner in a simple non-threatening conversation, what are the odds you could do so in a situation of scarce necessities?

 

[fncceo]

There is no way in a stateless society that mass death and destruction can occur.

Again .... really?

Yeah...a stateless society can murder 262,000,000 people, like state run societies did in the last century.

Really?

A lawless society will have no hospitals, no farms, no protection from the elements for the majority of the population.

None of those things exist in a society where at anytime someone can come and loot what you've created.

People in Hunter-gather societies tend not to have long lifespans.

Actually a capitalist republic has all of those things, but the difference is they are in the right proportion unlike in Socialism.

I would argue that they're out of proportion even in our society. Government and government sanctioned entities still has the power to loot productivity.

I support smaller government, but no government is not a viable option.

 

[Rustic]

There is no way in a stateless society that mass death and destruction can occur.

Again .... really?

Yeah...a stateless society can murder 262,000,000 people, like state run societies did in the last century.

Really?

A lawless society will have no hospitals, no farms, no protection from the elements for the majority of the population.

None of those things exist in a society where at anytime someone can come and loot what you've created.

People in Hunter-gather societies tend not to have long lifespans.

Actually a capitalist republic has all of those things, but the difference is they are in the right proportion unlike in Socialism.

I would argue that they're out of proportion even in our society. Government and government sanctioned entities still has the power to loot productivity.

I support smaller government, but no government is not a viable option.

Federal government could be 1000 times smaller than what it is now and function fine… But that would take responsible people even in high population areas. I personally think that's impossible

 

[fncceo]

Federal government could be 1000 times smaller than what it is now and function fine…

If your car breaks down, you buy a better car. You don't decide to walk.

It's imbecilic to toss out the concept of government because it has yet to obtain perfection.

We have to decide WHAT minimal functions we want government to provide and then limit its power to strictly those functions.