Anarchy

HIHIHIHIHI:

It was obviously an exaggeration.
If there is no government, no leaders, no laws, murder would be legal.
People will run rampant in the streets doing whatever they want.
if murder wasn't illegal, a whole lot more people would do it.
and that IS a fact.
I mean, people do it when it IS illegal.

I don't think exaggerations are a good basis for arguments.

Murder wouldn't be legal as such because without law, there would be no concept of legality.

I disagree with the assumption that without laws the human race would "run rampant", as if government is the only force of restraint we have. Just because there would be no laws doesn't necessarily mean there would be no morality.

In this discussion, choas and murder seem to be the only forseeable results of anarchy. Are there really no positive outcomes? (That's rhetorical...)

Attack.Kill.Bury.:

I dont believe in just chaos I believe in non-crooked goverment if we had a president who actually has lived a normal life then we would have a good country George bush was raised in a rich family without a care in the world while peop[le straved and lived on the street those people know society and us people

I WOULD LUV 2 KILL GEORGE BUSH

Losers_need_luv:

I WOULD LUV 2 KILL GEORGE BUSH

Firstly, please turn off caps lock when posting here in the Discussion Board.
It is annoying and not necessary.
Second, please read the rules. Your post holds no relevance to the topic,
and doens't offer any real substance, so it is considered spam, which
is also not welcome here in the DB.

A good rule of thumb is that if you don't have something solid
that relates to the topic to post, then don't post, because it
gets you negative attention and annoys people.

Not to rip on you, to inform you so that you know.

assiralc talc:

I don't think exaggerations are a good basis for arguments.

Murder wouldn't be legal as such because without law, there would be no concept of legality.

I disagree with the assumption that without laws the human race would "run rampant", as if government is the only force of restraint we have. Just because there would be no laws doesn't necessarily mean there would be no morality.

In this discussion, choas and murder seem to be the only forseeable results of anarchy. Are there really no positive outcomes? (That's rhetorical...)

what can i say, im just a sarcastic person.
I thought people would be able to comprehend the difference between some thing serious and something that isn't.
I see now that I have to spell everything out.

Yes.
People have morality.
Which is why not EVERYONE will run rampant killing and robbing people.
HOWEVER,
there are MANY people who do not have these morals.
If people go olut of the way to kill even when murder is illegal, imagine how many people are holding back because they could get in trouble.
Unfortunately, with anarchy, it is the people with morals, who choose to do the right thing and be a good person that will probably wind up victims to the people without morals.

I believe the government helps the country stay "in order" but somethings I don't believe they should do... Peopl are actually agreeing that they should be able to listen to our phone conversations and see every website we go on... I believe they shouldn't, people need privacy...

HIHIHIHIHI:

what can i say, im just a sarcastic person.
I thought people would be able to comprehend the difference between some thing serious and something that isn't.
I see now that I have to spell everything out.

Yes.
People have morality.
Which is why not EVERYONE will run rampant killing and robbing people.
HOWEVER,
there are MANY people who do not have these morals.
If people go olut of the way to kill even when murder is illegal, imagine how many people are holding back because they could get in trouble.
Unfortunately, with anarchy, it is the people with morals, who choose to do the right thing and be a good person that will probably wind up victims to the people without morals.

Usually, people will rob because they need money and it's a quick and easy way to get it. If you're desperate for money for food, even, then it's kind of understandable that you're preparing to steal something for it. Likewise, with murder- it usually happens because people are desperate or it's an accident, but I know this isn't always the case. Many people suffer under a capitalist system because not everyone has the same opportunities. So, if a lot of crimes are committed because of deprivation and desperate in a capitalist society, then if it became anarchist, it might actually be the opposite. There's really no way of proving which way it would go without trying it out- we can only speculate and either opinion makes as much sense as the next.

I believe that government is necessary.
I think democracy, Communism, and Socialism both look good on paper.
The probably with government is that it never works the way it says it will.

I think anarcy is complete shit. In my opinion, correct me if im wrong; I think that only people with low education think that the ''goverment'' is shit. Just like kids who think they are gangsters, dumb as a pineaple. Some goverments can be shit ofc, but i think that people can't live their own lives like they want, without any rules or stuff like in 5000 A.D. when they killed , raped , and only the strongest survived.

i think evertone should read lord of the flies?..... laws and rules are there to protect us. kinda surpressing 'the beast within' according to william golding.
i also agree goverment is necessary and democracy it has to be said is the worst form of representation except for the rest.

TheLastActionHero:

i think evertone should read lord of the flies?..... laws and rules are there to protect us. kinda surpressing 'the beast within' according to william golding.
i also agree goverment is necessary and democracy it has to be said is the worst form of representation except for the rest.

Totaly agree with you.

when people say Bush is a retard for example, don't vote on him. problem solved.

agree with you there but many people here are under the voting age and bush only won the last elections because he CHEATED many crucial votes from ethnic minorities and blacks in florida would have won the republicans leadership but these people were prevented from voting somehow...their ballot sheets had holes in them that were in the wrong place rendering their vote invalid thus bush won and may i remind you that it was down to florida over who had won the elections and the person who decided whether the votes on those dodgy ballot papers counted was a close associate of bush. his brother i think but im not sure.

Has it ever been proven he cheated?. I think its something like some people dont want to believe there was a walk on the moon. I dont know..

ofcourse there was a walk on the moon lol.......he did defintly cheat look it up i cnt be bothered to give you the evidence coz im tired...

.

Well im not from the USA so i didnt realy had a clue.

dejan997:

Totaly agree with you.

San_:

when people say Bush is a retard for example, don't vote on him. problem solved.

TheLastActionHero:

agree with you there .......... but im not sure.

dejan997:

Has it ever been proven he cheated?. I think its something like some people dont want to believe there was a walk on the moon. I dont know..

TheLastActionHero:

ofcourse there was a walk on the moon lol.......he did defintly cheat look it up i cnt be bothered to give you the evidence coz im tired...

dejan997:

Well im not from the USA so i didnt realy had a clue.

Every single one of these posts are SPAM.
If the spam continues, I will report this and have it locked.
Stick to the topic, please, or face losing the thread.

HarlequinXRomance:

but would it.. most wars occur becuase of government drawing lines on paper and creating borders. take the middle east for instance.

and some would argue that crime is an issue of society, and as such if u take away society as we know it. crime will not occur. and if it does occur it will simply be handled on a local level.

But how could it be handled on a local level if there's not local government to handle it? Who would take it on themself to stop an armed burglar if it wasn't directly effecting them? Would you?

Like you said, a lot of war is caused by things like the old Empirical Powers being arbitrary with their border lines. But at this point, I think the hatred runs to deep to simply say "well, you're not a country anymore, so you don't have to kill each other over who has power!" Sunnis and Shi'as would kill each other anyway, just because they loathe each other so much. I really do think people are simply to stupid as a whole to function under anarchy. Like someone said (er, heartache to sing), anarchy and communism are nice ideas in theory, but not so much in practice.

^ im not saying i believe what i say. im just pointing out what some people argue.

In theory anarchists believe that the reason for people committing crimes is not a psychological matter, but rather is a result of how people react with society. As such THEY would argue that if you take away the society there will be no indoctrination and social conditioning and as such crimes would not be committed.

Also have you considered that governments have not always existed therefore who delt with drime before it became beaurocratic.. the people. the way crime is dealt with may not be the way u wud consider 'right;, but it wud be dealt with.

Im not sure whether me taking on an armed robber is relevant. However if anarchism were to take place as they wud desire there would be no private property so in theory crimes would be of a different nature to those we experience now.

On the war issue yes there are deeper issues now.

So basically i am not saying I believe anarchism will work. It is too utopian for modern life as society has developed to far, with communications etc,
however perhaps in historial times the theory of anarchism is not so utopian.