Anarchy

sawa:

people dont murder and rape people unprovoked or without reason. so yus people do murder and rape even with laws so therefore punnishing people isnt much of a detterant. but surely as humans are intelligent most people think it unproductive to kill people and would therefore not. but those that do kill and rape people its their choice and punishing them doesnt do anything for families appart from vengence which id say is pretty old fashioned.

If people are so intelligent then we wouldn't have needed laws to stop people from raping, murdering, stealing and whatever else in the first place. And what you're saying about it being your choice makes no sense to me. It seems as though you mean if I go out and beat up a five-year-old and get arrested, all I have to say to the police when I'm caught is "It's my choice, I wanted to do it, so you can't stop me?"
Punishment is not about vengence, it's about prevention. If you get punished for doing something, unless you're incredibly stupid, you're not likely to do it again. And if someone is imprisoned for life - and I mean life - then there is no chance that they will hurt anyone else.

sawa:

yus people steal money to survive but if they have enough "wealth" to survive and feed adictions then surely there is little need for them to steal. if wealth is shared out then then who would you owe debts to as anarchism generally supports the ideal of abolishing money

And if there are no laws then it is impossible to control how much money each person gets as they could easily get more money from somewhere.

sawa:

anarchism is about self imposed governance therefore there is order . you dont need a hierarchial society to have order.

Anarchism is about the destruction of all democracy, not self-imposed government. Society needs a hierarchy. Society has always had a hierarchy. Without someone having more power than you, you can do whatever you want and you can make other people do whatever you want them to do.

sawa:

the goverment put restrictions on how you should live, what you can do, what you can say, what you can know. protect people from what? themselves surely sercurity isnt as important as freedom . well you see you tend to vote for a government and seeing as anarchism entail lack of rulers it would be a little hypocritical for me to vote when i am old enough which should be next election. What diffence does it make to vote all the main parties are centre-right or worse they are essentially the same in all of relevence whether its the conservatives the lib dems, or labour. an essentially 3 party system because of sponsers in a representive "democracy" means there is little choice

People need protecting from themselves sometimes. People have a habit of doing exactly what is bad for them and without rules and restriction people would do exactly what was bad for them with no thought to what consequences their actions might have. Without security, there would be no freedom. Without a democracy of some sort, we'd be living in the past. Democracy means you have a choice. Anarchism would never work because someone, somewhere, would declare themselves as the 'ruler' and there might end up being a dictatorship. In fact, it would be an Adolf Hitler type situation all over again - no real government, one person says they have all the answers, they become the leader of the country and decide everything to do with the country based on their own personal beliefs rather than what the people want. Surely the current government is much better than that.

People aren't good enough in general to make anarchy work in my opinion.

Ghetto--Superstar:

Anarchism would never work because someone, somewhere, would declare themselves as the 'ruler' and there might end up being a dictatorship. In fact, it would be an Adolf Hitler type situation all over again.

if there were true anarchy no one would follow the so called "ruler." It would be pretty hard for someone to dubbed themself ruler when no one listens to the government.

and if someone did happen to get into power, I doubt they'd be like Hitler.
Plus, he was voted in...he didn't take over.

Social Suicide:

if there were true anarchy no one would follow the so called "ruler." It would be pretty hard for someone to dubbed themself ruler when no one listens to the government.

and if someone did happen to get into power, I doubt they'd be like Hitler.
Plus, he was voted in...he didn't take over.

I know. The next part explained how it could end up being that way.

And in times of crisis, people always follow the ones who appear to know what they are doing, so there could end up being a democracy again with people following someone they think has all the answers.

the marquis de sade wrote something about how people who are victims of theft should be the ones punished for being weak enough to have something stolen off them in the first place

and XxUsedxX think of all the bad things that happen right now with government and all the bad things directly caused by your government

^wow thats an interesting view on theft, lol kinda makes me think he only said it because he got something stolen once and didnt do enough, so he said that to make himself seem braver, lol! but then again this is the Marquis de sade we are talking about, anything is possible, lol!!

Anarchy cannot reign totally nor can order, they are always in balance, one tipping the scales at one point or another but always put back into balance by the other.

Anarchy is lawlessness by definition.

I believe in that.

But not chaos.

We are simply too irresponsible to handle a state of anarchy. In a perfect world, there would be complete anarchy.

We cannot move on until we realize that we cannot run around telling each other what to do and trying to punish each other.. eveyrone has to be responsible for themselves, but that's just not in the near future.

So I don't know what I support RIGHT now.

Realistically, I don't think the world could make
anarchy work.
It'd just be complete & utter chaos.
So we'd need someone in charge.
But anarchy is a great theory.
I'd love the idea of no government!
But I don't think it'd work.

well i cant remember all of what the marquis de sade said but i read this quote from him once where he was explaining why governments were wrong and laws were tupid and anarchy should be followed

he also said things like rape wasnt a crime because its the victims fault and murder isnt a crime because if somebody wanted to kill somebody they should be allowed to and it should be remembered that he was in a mental institution for extreme views and yeah he did make a good point about protecting your ownership of your property and people wouldnt be so lax about security if theft only punished the weak who got stole from

xOhTheHorror!___:

Realistically, I don't think the world could make
anarchy work.
It'd just be complete & utter chaos.
So we'd need someone in charge.
But anarchy is a great theory.
I'd love the idea of no government!
But I don't think it'd work.

Anarchy is complete and utter chaos.
it also is what takes place when there is no government.

If you think about it there will always be someone overpowering someone else.
So basically anarchy can only work for a day or two because someone is going to
try to rule someone, or try to be in higher power . so we can try.

ZombieXDoll:

If you think about it there will always be someone overpowering someone else.
So basically anarchy can only work for a day or two because someone is going to
try to rule someone, or try to be in higher power . so we can try.

^this reminded me of something.

The most brillioant example of Anarchy was the French Revolution. The poor rose up and struck down the rich, cut off a couple of peoples heads, and killed thousands of people, all in an effort to change the way the goverment was- and make it better. You know who was put in the place of their old kind? Napoleon. And if any read up on him, he was more tyrannical than the previous king. So basically all this effort and destruction for nothing.

See, I'm a neutral in this area. I believe myself to be an anarchist. I think that the government shoud not rule the people, and that we can take care of ourselves. But, as I said, I'm a neutral. With out the government, only the strong survive, generally. But, hey, I think the president could use an eight-grade literature class.

I would never want an anarchy-centered world. You need order to be restored in a world like this. The image of a nicer world without government is often a whole lot more extravegant than it would be in reality.

i guess ideally anarchy would be great....but i think that in practice it wouldnt really work.....theres ups and downs to it....

I think anarchy is an awful idea

A society without a government would crumble,theres no doubt