Don't have an account? Create one!

Anarchy

AuthorMessage
CyanidexDeath
Jazz Hands
CyanidexDeath
Age: -
Gender: Female
Posts: 365
January 6th, 2008 at 11:46am
Thuglife.:



Im sure it could work in some cases but just because it works in one place in spain doesnt mean that it could work on a wider scale. you have to take into consideration people in society who really are not fit to live in a state where there is no law enforced or a government. and its not like im saying if people were set free everyone would go on a massive orgy of violence but im just saying that regulations are put into place for a reason not to "control us" or anything but just make life for all of society just that little bit safe i mean could you imagine an massive four lane highway .. with no lanes or markings.



Yes i know that it wouldn't work everywhere else but thats only because not everyone would commit to it. Especial in America. Most are to brain washed to think on their own ((i live here so i can diss us)) And that is a very good point about the regulations are there to keep us safe. But in an anarchy the people create there own rules and work together to create a system that works.
DIE! DIE! DIE!
Bleeding on the Floor
DIE! DIE! DIE!
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 1067
January 6th, 2008 at 12:05pm
That seems more like socialism then anarchy.

I can see anarchy in america being a crime infested crap hole. There are too many people obsessed with power to let that work, not to mention I highly doubt people would be willing to work for the greater good. Farmers would farm for themselves and people would starve. Workers would stop working and people would be stealing..with no use for money. eventually, people will look for a leader to take them out of the horror, and that leader would probably rule as a monarch or dictator.

Eh..good luck anarchy.
eepshyes
Shotgun Sinner
eepshyes
Age: -
Gender: Female
Posts: 7323
January 7th, 2008 at 10:13am
Anarchy simply makes no sense to me.

How can people rule themselves? It would be mayhem. We can't trust people to fend for themselves.
Think of all the good things the government provides for you. You could also think of the bad things, but health insurance for one. And schools for metnally handicapped people. Places that help find jobs for physically handicapped people.

All funded by the dreaded government.

Sure, in some places, they're still working on it. But without even a bad governent, where would the people of that country be?
Thug Life.
Bleeding on the Floor
Thug Life.
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1315
January 15th, 2008 at 02:58am
Cyanide Hell....:
.



Yes i know that it wouldn't work everywhere else but thats only because not everyone would commit to it. Especial in America. Most are to brain washed to think on their own ((i live here so i can diss us)) And that is a very good point about the regulations are there to keep us safe. But in an anarchy the people create there own rules and work together to create a system that works.

[/size][/font][/quote]

Yeahh but as western society we are already hardwired with a set of expectations on whats acceptable and whats not .and expectations turn to rules and eventually rules turn into laws. you cant make rules without a governing body or an agency of some sort to enforce them . so therefor if people were to create there own rules on how to live and so on they would in turn have to create a governing body to decided on what rules should be enforced thus totally killing the whole idea of anarchy .

Ignore Alien Orders
Salute You in Your Grave
Ignore Alien Orders
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 2026
January 17th, 2008 at 03:26am
DIE! DIE! DIE!:
That seems more like socialism then anarchy.

I can see anarchy in america being a crime infested crap hole. There are too many people obsessed with power to let that work, not to mention I highly doubt people would be willing to work for the greater good. Farmers would farm for themselves and people would starve. Workers would stop working and people would be stealing..with no use for money. eventually, people will look for a leader to take them out of the horror, and that leader would probably rule as a monarch or dictator.

Eh..good luck anarchy.


The two aren't mutually exclusive. Actually, the first person to describe himself as an anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and he could also be described as a socialist.

Also anarchism isn't something that could really work on a large scale--as in, a massive population and plot of land the size of the United States. It's not something you can force people into--i.e., the people who wouldn't want to work for the greater good. If that were to somehow happen, it would probably unfold like you described. But small communes governing themselves by using direct democracy would do just fine.
sir_pleb
Jazz Hands
sir_pleb
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 303
January 19th, 2008 at 06:58pm
DIE! DIE! DIE!:
That seems more like socialism then anarchy.

I can see anarchy in america being a crime infested crap hole. There are too many people obsessed with power to let that work, not to mention I highly doubt people would be willing to work for the greater good. Farmers would farm for themselves and people would starve. Workers would stop working and people would be stealing..with no use for money. eventually, people will look for a leader to take them out of the horror, and that leader would probably rule as a monarch or dictator.

Eh..good luck anarchy.


It wouldn't necessarily mean the end of money. Trade, and later money, is something that evolved naturally.

Essentially it started with sort of "swaps", one man lives in a place that is good for growing carrots and another lives in a place that is good for growing potatoes. One needs potatoes from the other, who needs carrots from the first, it's easy to see that they would trade, what one needs for what the other needs.

Money rose from that, essentially when employing people. You employ someone, in return for their time and labour, they'll want you to supply the food and such that they can no longer procure themselves. Money is the promise of doing this for them.

Changing to an anarchic society wouldn't mean that this would be removed, simply that it would no longer be controlled by an authority, and would follow the laws of economics naturally.
love on her arms.
Bleeding on the Floor
love on her arms.
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1662
January 20th, 2008 at 09:21am
I lot of people say the goverment hurts more then it help.

What about police?

Without goverment the world would turn into complete chaos
Ignore Alien Orders
Salute You in Your Grave
Ignore Alien Orders
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 2026
January 20th, 2008 at 03:05pm
Die Romantic.:
I lot of people say the goverment hurts more then it help.

What about police?

Without goverment the world would turn into complete chaos


"Society had a crime problem. It hired cops to attack crime. Now society has a cop problem."
--Tom Robbins
and if they get me
Killjoy
and if they get me
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 3
January 20th, 2008 at 05:51pm
please correct me if i'm wrong, which most likely i am becuase i think i'm confusing two different things...

but the symbol for anarchy, you know the A in the circle, stands for the asmodeas, which is a demonic force driving teenagers to sexual perversion and suicide.

that is %100 true, you can even look it up.

but does that mean that anarchists have to do with the devil and satanic tendencies? what's all this about the government?
Ignore Alien Orders
Salute You in Your Grave
Ignore Alien Orders
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 2026
January 20th, 2008 at 06:53pm
It has other meanings predating anarchism, . But the anarchist usage is an A for anarchy and an O for order, and represents part of a quote from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Also, it's supposed to look like this, not like the ones you see on shoelaces at Hot Topic.

Anarchism in general is a political philosophy that involves the abolition of government. It has nothing to do with the symbolism you mentioned.