Discussion of Anarchism

[maxwell's demon]

since all these social models overlap anyhow, any legitimate governmental/legal model is going to need a financial model to go with it, to work in concert.
So...for anarchy, i propose:

Bequestism.

It's simple and it'll help keep the power elite from rising again.

Bequestism.

 

[JLBats]

I'm a big fan of Socio-Islamo-Fascist-Constitutional Monarchy-Representative Anarchy.

 

[kainedamo]

So you depose those who started out with good intentions but morphed into your oppressors, trust 100% in human nature in the interim, until you organize a new system which is run by people with the best intentions who later morph into your oppressors. Neat cycle.

Those currently in power do not have the best interests of the people in mind. They have the best interests of those that want to fund them. Democracy has failed because politicians lie to the public for votes.

Let's look at the top 3 parties in Britain.

Labour. Labour set up private funding for public insitutions. Through loopholes and abuse of the system, a handfull of business men have abused this, which means millions of pounds of taxpayer money is going into their pockets every year. Blair supported the war in Iraq, despite the overwhelming public disagreement with the war, and his own party's disagreement with the war. Blair is a lapdog of Bush. It's clear that the two men have a bigger picture in their minds, that has NOTHING to do with fighting a war on terror.

The Tories. Completely and utterly unable to organize themselves into a cohesive party. David Cameron promises to lift the ban on fox hunting if he gets power. David Cameron is just as bad, probably worse than Blair, in his views on how foreign affairs should be handled. Just like Blair, Cameron ignores the real topics at hand and can only talk about Islamic fascists and war on terrorism.

Liberal Democrats. These guys will never achieve power, at least not for several generations anyway. Their leader confessed to being an alchoholic as soon as the last elections ended, so they have a view of being dishonest. Wow, dishonest politicians!

Democracy has failed.

 

[maxwell's demon]

democracy hasn't really ever existed.

well, at least not since like, ancient Greece.

 

[JLBats]

Those currently in power do not have the best interests of the people in mind. They have the best interests of those that want to fund them. Democracy has failed because politicians lie to the public for votes.

Let's look at the top 3 parties in Britain.

Labour. Labour set up private funding for public insitutions. Through loopholes and abuse of the system, a handfull of business men have abused this, which means millions of pounds of taxpayer money is going into their pockets every year. Blair supported the war in Iraq, despite the overwhelming public disagreement with the war, and his own party's disagreement with the war. Blair is a lapdog of Bush. It's clear that the two men have a bigger picture in their minds, that has NOTHING to do with fighting a war on terror.

The Tories. Completely and utterly unable to organize themselves into a cohesive party. David Cameron promises to lift the ban on fox hunting if he gets power. David Cameron is just as bad, probably worse than Blair, in his views on how foreign affairs should be handled. Just like Blair, Cameron ignores the real topics at hand and can only talk about Islamic fascists and war on terrorism.

Liberal Democrats. These guys will never achieve power, at least not for several generations anyway. Their leader confessed to being an alchoholic as soon as the last elections ended, so they have a view of being dishonest. Wow, dishonest politicians!

Democracy has failed.

I think you missed the point of his post.

 

[kainedamo]

You know what happened? I was so busy ranting that I forgot what his point was.

So you depose those who started out with good intentions but morphed into your oppressors, trust 100% in human nature in the interim, until you organize a new system which is run by people with the best intentions who later morph into your oppressors. Neat cycle.

Look at the Americans. When at first those American dudes were making the constitution, those guys had the best of intentions for the people.

But those in power haven't had the best intentions of the people in mind for a good long time. It's just become about gaining power. So they need to be overthrown. You might see it as a cycle, but it's necassery. It's better than just leaving things as they are.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Anarchy is absence of government. That is all.
It is not absence of order or law.

So that would mean that each individual creates his own law and has his own definition of order...and when his laws and definitions conflict with his neighbor's equally sovereign sense of "right", what, they arm wrestle for it? Nope, not if one guy decides that anyone who plays loud music at night and wakes him up should be shot to keep things "orderly".

Preposterous.
sorry, technically absence of government doesn't necessarily entail absence of order or law, but practically, when Human Nature is added, it sure as f*** does, man.

 

[Danalys]

don't you think someone would be less likely to play music loudly at night if it could lead to them getting killed?

 

[maxwell's demon]

rock and roll has no fear.

 

[Danalys]

no fear of what will kill you leads to death then.

 

[maxwell's demon]

rock and roll kills death

 

[Hades]

You people sure jump from topic to topic within a topic. It is confusing.

 

[Hades]

rock and roll kills death

I rock with my cock out

it is the only way.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

don't you think someone would be less likely to play music loudly at night if it could lead to them getting killed?

Fine, if you're a killjoy, literally a killjoy....Let's look at certain areas of the deep south, where, without a doubt, if there was no law, and a government to enforce that law, the actual local majority would decide that they didn't want any n*****s moving in, and that all n*****s should be shot on sight.

If you don't believe that would happen, you are uninformed and naive.

So, well, hey...don't you think those filthy n****s would be less likely to move into the neighborhood if it could lead to them getting killed?

 

[The Amazing Lee]

Anarchy is not a good thing. We do need to be controlled.....I don't like being controlled not at all.

But I'd rather be alive than dead

 

[Danalys]

Fine, if you're a killjoy, literally a killjoy....Let's look at certain areas of the deep south, where, without a doubt, if there was no law, and a government to enforce that law, the actual local majority would decide that they didn't want any n*****s moving in, and that all n*****s should be shot on sight.

If you don't believe that would happen, you are uninformed and naive.

So, well, hey...don't you think those filthy n****s would be less likely to move into the neighborhood if it could lead to them getting killed?

i assume people would be smart enough to get out of there quick. and seek revenge with an army for those that didn't.

 

[Hades]

i assume people would be smart enough to get out of there quick. and seek revenge with an army for those that didn't.

But that would just lead to more, and more war. Where would that get us?

 

[Danalys]

i'm thinking the dust would settle and a whole bunch of people willing to kill would be dead. everyone else would find another way. this is the reality of social change. people die.

 

[maxwell's demon]

Bequestism

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Fine, if you're a killjoy, literally a killjoy....Let's look at certain areas of the deep south, where, without a doubt, if there was no law, and a government to enforce that law, the actual local majority would decide that they didn't want any n*****s moving in, and that all n*****s should be shot on sight.

If you don't believe that would happen, you are uninformed and naive.

I live in the South, and ummm...no. That is among the stupidiest things I have ever heard.

1) Southerners does not equal racist. It is not confined to the South, I have no idea where people get this incredibly stupid idea

2) Common people were not enforcing Jim Crow. It was a movement that started in politics when the Populist and Neoburboun movements decided black people were hampering their ability to get elected. So both parties abandoned them and began to try to disenfranchise them from voting. After this, the system attempted to begin to justify their hatred of blacks by creating the myth of the black man. This eventually led to the creation of the KKK, Citizen's Council's, etc. However when the elites like Wallace, the Governor of SC, Arkansas and Tennessee (to name a few) finally told the people that integration would happen it did. In fact up until that point several TV news interviews revealled that common people really had no problem with African Americans, in fact almost all the students did not have any problem at all. But when the elites were touting it as "the noble thing to do", they followed suit.

3) The KKK has numbers believed to be around the low 1000s at this point. I have yet to meet a Southerner of any age who would shoot black people, that point is so stupid it makes my head hurt. I know of a scant few who would "not talk to them"...that is about it.

So, well, hey...don't you think those filthy n****s would be less likely to move into the neighborhood if it could lead to them getting killed?

I would suggest living in an area before making blanket generalizations about it's people.

 

[Superhobo]

Wow. Imagine my shock when I woke up at twelve, and logged on to the hype! To see that my philosophical thread has blossomed. Wow.

 

[JLBats]

Wow. Imagine my shock when I woke up at twelve, and logged on to the hype! To see that my philosophical thread has blossomed. Wow.

Um, most of it is discussion about pie. Sorry.

 

[maxwell's demon]

hades is at it again

(this post will make no sense some day)

 

[JLBats]

hades is at it again

(this post will make no sense some day)

Holy ****.

 

[JLBats]

See, but Hades doesn't know how to replicate Wilhelm's posting style, so it won't be the same.