Hey, we need 1 more for a game gameID=22645 who wants to join?

never mind

I'd take anarchy over socialism/communism. That's for damn sure.

It's rare to see so many people with such divergent views on the same side of an argument. If you want to call it that. @ hellalt "sterotypical American jackass" I don't even think most teabaggers would agree with him, though I sure a minority would.

@TMW - you realize the two are *not* mutually exclusive, right? Lookup anarcho-communism. The problem with anrchy as a theory and anarcho-anything in reality is that anarchy assumes "common sense will prevail" but "common sense" doesn't mean the protection of the weak. Man is an animal and, as such, will do that which gets him the biggest reward. We subconciously want what the Joneses have and want to be better than everyone else. If we didn't have laws and the law didn't have teeth, we would devolve into chaos like something out of a post-apocalyptic movie, and the moment you have laws and give the law-enforcement body teeth, you have a government. A very limited one, maybe, but a government nonetheless, and you cease having anarchy. Anarchy, by it's very definition, is lawlessness because laws imply a governing power to enforce and punish their violation.

And when you talk anarcho-whatever, the whatever part is a form of government which invalidates the anarchy part of it and eventually comes to a state of either complete chaos or becomes the second part (capitalism, communism, whatever). anarchy as a governmental form is insustainable because it will either fall into chaos if enough of the group puts self above others, or will convert to some form of government when the more socially responsible individuals bring about some form of law and order.

I have to agree with all this
Homo homini lupus

I have skimmed over both of your articles. I also know one or two people who seem to like anarchy, although I'm not sure if they are very politically intelligent. At one point I read, "Under Anarcho Capitalism enforcement is based on fealty and association, not on location." This just reminded me of feudalism. I gave up after that.

Both corporations and governments have the ability and inclination to use propaganda, to subvert the knowledge of the people. Both corporations and governments have the ability and inclination to use coercive force as long as the knowledge of it is manipulated. Both have the potential to be corrupt.

You admitted yourself that you believe in the extremes of either Anarchy or Authoritarianism. We probably have too much government currently, but that doesn't make the solutions anything near the complete opposite. We live in a corrupt world, but the benefits of government are greater then the problems.

I also think that you favor the government as having a smaller role, because it would favor you. Yes this would encourage people to get off their asses and stop being lazy, which is great, but would this really benefit the entire population? Why is it so important to make the rich richer? We need a balance of the two.

I know you have changed your mind, but I spent over half an hour reading this thread, and I wanted to give my opinion.

Latin doesn't make what you said relevant.

Is he calling him a large hairy wolfman?

By the way, sorry for turning on you so fast last night. Wasn't anything personal, just business.

"Man is a wolf to (his fellow) man"

I love Latin.

"Anarchism had it's time. Neanderthal man was the victim before civilization took it's place."

lmao true that. talk about an egregious abuse of human rights.

oh well. guess they didn't have human rights back then.

anyway minarchy would just collapse into anarchy. if government is too weak that shit will just topple.

I think Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes puts paid to the whole anarchist argument to be honest, and that's been around for almost four centuries.

At school we have an ongoing joke on Anarchistic Sosialism. Everyone gives up their private property voluntarily and gets what they need. No laws are needed as everone is happy and as such there is no crime. Also there's no need for an army because there's no wars.
Of course it wouldn't work, but as an Utopia I like it.

GO ANARCHY!!!!

I would get involved, but Draugnar, and others, have made all the points I would have made myself.

Anarcho-Capitalism would be hell on earth. Conservative Man, you are an idiot.

@Jami: Did you even read the post were I changed my mind? You need to read everything before you go around calling people idiots.

Anarcho-Capitalism is dumb though, and i hate rich people who support anarchism because they think they're money will keep them safe, at the expense of everyone else. as V says, anarchy and chaos are two different things, the sad thing is that people are not consistently noble enough by nature to allow for pure self government/no government. it sucks because if that were the case (if people were virtuous) it would be an amazing system.

what would be awesome is when everyone on earth adopts anarchy except for the nation of andorra which then becomes a global empire

you know, because, since it has a working government and everything, they would have an influx of immigrants, it being the land of opportunity.

The Andorran Empire. At least it sounds cool.

you could be born to unfortunate circumstances and there wouldn't be laws determining that your parents would even have to care for you. you could have to acquire food, water, education, and health care for yourself right from birth. society would regress and humans would devolve. many species of animals even have more government than anarchy.

Russell Howard

agh,. I MEANT http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=22838

One point to keep in mind is that human beings have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, but governments have only plagued us for the last 10,000 or so. And most people on the planet were still government-free by our modern definition until (I'd guess) the last 2500 years or so. Anarchy has been the state of being for the vast majority of mankind's history. Apparently it worked, since we're all here today.

People are not inherently evil.

People are not inherently good either.

People are inherently evil.

"evil" is so subjective though, and how do you explain love? i think people are people, and you can't simply right off people as good or evil