Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

hendaron wrote:And what if our "politicians" aren't able to solve the problem and don't form an governement?

Then you get Somalia in the early 90s, Lebanon in the 80s, Haiti now mayhaps, and any place where the state broke up into smaller states,

Yeah, take a look at Somalia. That's anarchism in action, right there.

Now ask yourself if that's a place you'd like to live in.

It's really annoying as I can't remember the content, but in the 3rd or 4th episode of Sons of Anarchy the main character is reading a "diary" written by his father / gang founder and it talks about the concept of Anarchy. From what I remember the concept is fundimentally different to what we think it means.

Scrazza wrote: But, when the civilians revolt and become anarchists, the politicians will organize something to gain back control.

You're absolutely right. It's called Martial Law enforced by the military.

It's a bit naive to think that they'll come together lovey-dovey to fix bipartisan(or multi-partisan)problems because people are revolting. It's more effective(time and cost) to simply become a military state. Want proof? Look at anytime a group of people riot(which would be a violent version of what you're proposing, really). It's simply the fastest, most efficient way for the government to regain control.

You have to keep in mind that it's in Belgium. They will think it over ten times wether to send in the military or not. And Belgium military are not allowed to shoot civilians, especially Belgian civilians. And it would probably be so that someone makes a mistake in procedures, so that the military can't intervene at all, and get sent back to base. Trust me, such things happen. We set murderers free again after they get caught because someone made a mistake in the procedures.

OK, so you're saying when society breaks down that the government won't call in the military? Thats not logical.

Further if the government truly breaks down then the military, or portions of it, will unilaterally begin to take over. Without the rule of law they are the ones with the guns and make the rules.

Frazzled wrote:OK, so you're saying when society breaks down that the government won't call in the military? Thats not logical.

Further if the government truly breaks down then the military, or portions of it, will unilaterally begin to take over. Without the rule of law they are the ones with the guns and make the rules.

Unless the military is deployed oversea's or are defeated by the superior numbers of everyone else OR the country has a crappy military.

Anarchism?

lulz no!

Also read "The man who was Thursday"

Its good for lulz.

Frazzled wrote:OK, so you're saying when society breaks down that the government won't call in the military? Thats not logical.

Belguim is NOT logical

hendaron wrote:

Frazzled wrote:OK, so you're saying when society breaks down that the government won't call in the military? Thats not logical.

Belguim is NOT logical

yea but thats made up with good beer. You don't have to be logical when you have Chemay.

hendaron wrote:

Frazzled wrote:OK, so you're saying when society breaks down that the government won't call in the military? Thats not logical.

Belguim is NOT logical

This ^^.

We aren't afraid of our army. Last year there was a fuzz about the belgian army. We had three bullets for each soldier .

Three fething bullets!!! And yes, we had soldiers in the middle-east with three bullets!!!

God, i love my country. This stuff just doesn't happen anywhere else.

I;m all for Anarchy as long as I'm in charge of it and everyone does what I say.

Ahtman wrote:I;m all for Anarchy as long as I'm in charge of it and everyone does what I say.

Thats not acceptable. I want to be in charge and have access to full auto weiner dogs. It should be noted that male weiner dogs have certain important featues extremely low to the ground. this makes them very cranky. I don't think you're prepared to mess with that.

So you're pissed at the government for not doing their jobs, even when they have a great environment to do so. You want them to start properly doing their jobs when everyone is pissed off at them and there is no police force or laws to protect them? Either you politicans are awesome, or you didn't account for fear/fleeing the country.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Anarchism?

lulz no!

Also read "The man who was Thursday"

Its good for lulz.

It's also a very entertaining book.

Thing is, anarchism plays the same sort of game that other very silly ideology, libertarianism, plays. Both come in a wide variety of forms, and play this funny little game where you can never quite hold them to logical consequences of their systems, because that always claim that's not a part of the true version of the system. Both are able to play this game because neither has ever been ever even been close to actual real world application (well, arguably anarchism has in Spain, but there's little of Spain's anarchism in many of today's anarchists, either the left or right wing variants). Nor will either ever be put in place, because they worry about all kinds of very high minded but very pointless principals like the immorality of state coercion, instead of things that people actually need the political system to offer, like public infrastructure and legal protection.

They exist on internet message boards and nowhere else.

Scrazza wrote:Can't a 16 year old like me, start to be politically engaged without his ideas told to be immature?

Well, there's a balance. I agree that you shouldn't be shouted down or mocked just because you're younger, but you've also got to understand that, being so much younger and having read and experienced a lot less of the world, there's every chance your ideas are immature.

ANd ultimately, your idea that the problem is that politicians just aren't listening (to who? to you? to the youth? to everyone?) and that this would be solved by a short bout of civil disobedience is fairly immature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wolfstan wrote:It's really annoying as I can't remember the content, but in the 3rd or 4th episode of Sons of Anarchy the main character is reading a "diary" written by his father / gang founder and it talks about the concept of Anarchy. From what I remember the concept is fundimentally different to what we think it means.

It's fringe politics. No words means what you think it means, and if you listen to these people long enough and get your head around what they actually mean, then point out a problem, they'll change the meaning again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:OK, so you're saying when society breaks down that the government won't call in the military? Thats not logical.

Further if the government truly breaks down then the military, or portions of it, will unilaterally begin to take over. Without the rule of law they are the ones with the guns and make the rules.

The world doesn't work that way. Ever. There's this idea that absence of laws people will suddenly start acting for their immediate material gain and it's nonsense. Ideas like duty and service and the nation actually to matter to people.

The world doesn't work that way. Ever. There's this idea that absence of laws people will suddenly start acting for their immediate material gain and it's nonsense. Ideas like duty and service and the nation actually to matter to people.

You're right. Other than Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia this has never occurred.

Anarchism one of the few political "systems" that's actually more ridiculous than communism.

sebster wrote:The world doesn't work that way. Ever. There's this idea that absence of laws people will suddenly start acting for their immediate material gain and it's nonsense. Ideas like duty and service and the nation actually to matter to people.

People already act for their immediate material gain all the time. How is it ridiculous to assume that trend would continue? I don't think the US would go Mogadishu over night without laws in place but the people with power will start to exert it. The moment the nation ceases to offer its protections to its citizens I think all the ideas of duty and service in the name of the nation goes away. People will still think of duty and service but to local groups, their family and friends.

Anarchism relies on the idea that people are fundamentally good. Seeing as how we're all colossal jerks to each other even with laws around, how would we act when there's no one to run to? No police to tattle, no judge to listen to your tort, no fireman to save your house?

"Anarchism" is just communism by another name that takes a 1984 newspeak approach to the language and calls an all controlling government "anarchy" instead.

That being said I'm not a rabid anticommunist, I just don't think it works out very well. Historicaly it hasn't worked out well at all with the exception of modern China because they embraced key capitalistic principles in their economy. The problem with communism/anarchism is people tend to be self centered and will chose to do what they want to do rather than bust their ass off for "the common good" which is why Anarchy/Communism only really works under 3 circumstances.

#1 People can be kicked out of the community, and life in the community is voluntarily. This applies to functional communist communities that survive within capitalistic societies, and the armed services of the USA as life in the military is much like life in a communist state. Those that don't perform up to standards for the common good are kicked out of the community. Obviously that option would not be there for a world government, or a national one unless the state banishes people and there is another state willing to take it's refugees.

#2 A Common goal or enemy is holding the people together. Russia is a good example here, during WW2 the people busted their ass off to help out the state without complaining much because they were afraid of the Germans during WW2, but after the war people cared a lot less about busting their ass for the common good.

#3 The state forces them to work. Those that don't perform are demoted to crap, dirty, and or dangerous jobs. Those that still fail to perform to standards are further punished by being sent out to Siberia, a prison, or forced to work in a coal mine. The end result here is the people become slaves to a draconian and all powerful state.

Frazzled wrote:You're right. Other than Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia this has never occurred.

That doesn't describe any situation in Latin American, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, or Asia that has ever occurred.

Things can get really ugly,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyyr wrote:People already act for their immediate material gain all the time. How is it ridiculous to assume that trend would continue? I don't think the US would go Mogadishu over night without laws in place but the people with power will start to exert it. The moment the nation ceases to offer its protections to its citizens I think all the ideas of duty and service in the name of the nation goes away. People will still think of duty and service but to local groups, their family and friends.

Noting that people act for material gain does not in any way mean people will act entirely for personal material gain. Your recognition that people would still show loyalty to family and friends is enough by itself to show the silliness of Fraz's claim.

The idea that belief in a nation disappears when the nation collapses isn't true. Look at long running seperatist campaigns, in which people fight for the restoration of a country long since occupied by another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

schadenfreude wrote:"Anarchism" is just communism by another name that takes a 1984 newspeak approach to the language and calls an all controlling government "anarchy" instead.

Anarchism is more diverse than that, with many forms taking up an position that's on the far right wing. Every form of anarchism is stupid, but only some have anything to do with communism.

Well the far ring wing version of anarchism is nothing more than extreme laissez faire capitalism, and bears absolutely no resemblance to real anarchy.

The only thing that bears a real resemblance to anarchy is anarchy. Real anarchy is situations like 25 men shipwrecked and swimming in shark infested waters with nothing but a 10 man lifeboat. Anarchists don't support anarchy.

My mind is too simple and hyped on caffeine to fully-understand it

schadenfreude wrote:Well the far ring wing version of anarchism is nothing more than extreme laissez faire capitalism, and bears absolutely no resemblance to real anarchy.

The only thing that bears a real resemblance to anarchy is anarchy. Real anarchy is situations like 25 men shipwrecked and swimming in shark infested waters with nothing but a 10 man lifeboat. Anarchists don't support anarchy.

Most anarchists value their own lives too much to support true anarchy.

Anarchism is more diverse than that, with many forms taking up an position that's on the far right wing. Every form of anarchism is stupid, but only some have anything to do with communism.

Anarchism and communism are mutually exclusive to one another. None have ever had anything to do with the other.

Anarchy is ridiculous, and generally i find people that claim to be anarchists are spankers.

And people who wear "Che" Tshirts.

Well.. and almost everyone if Im being honest.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Anarchism is more diverse than that, with many forms taking up an position that's on the far right wing. Every form of anarchism is stupid, but only some have anything to do with communism.

Anarchism and communism are mutually exclusive to one another. None have ever had anything to do with the other.

Anarcho-communism disagree's.

People seem to think that communism=stalinism :(

I dunno, I tend to agree with Shuma here, Communism is a set of rules for how to operate a society. As soon as you have rules, you don't really have Anarchism anymore.

Anarchism is "the absence of government."

Communism is "a crappy and/or naive form of government."[1]

1. This is meant to be ignored as a semi-humorous potshot at Communism.