Proof that Anarchy = Destruction of Society

The majority believe anarchy is chaotic and that all anarchists are punks with mohawks vandalizing private property. Just because most people believe it, doesn't make it accurate.

Are you telling me if I go somewhere in the south where the majority believes that all muslims are terrorists, that any muslim in that area is without a doubt a terrorist?

It's not what you believe, it is what the definition of the word states. I am literally going off of the definition (Anarchy | Define Anarchy at Dictionary.com). Maybe you are working off a definition I am not privy too. If so, please make it known, so we can discuss. If we can't even agree upon the definition of a word, then this conversation is going no where.
 


It's not what you believe, it is what the definition of the word states. I am literally going off of the definition (Anarchy | Define Anarchy at Dictionary.com). Maybe you are working off a definition I am not privy too. If so, please make it known, so we can discuss. If we can't even agree upon the definition of a word, then this conversation is going no where.

Try this one:

Anarchism | Define Anarchism at Dictionary.com

a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.

I think that's closer to what our resident anarchists are referring to.
 
It's not what you believe, it is what the definition of the word states. I am literally going off of the definition (Anarchy | Define Anarchy at Dictionary.com). Maybe you are working off a definition I am not privy too. If so, please make it known, so we can discuss. If we can't even agree upon the definition of a word, then this conversation is going no where.

Personally, I'm more comfortable deriving a definition from the etymology of anarchy:

Online Etymology Dictionary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Etymology_and_terminology

I won't speak for anyone else.
 
I think that's closer to what our resident anarchists are referring to.

If that is the definition we are going off of, the original Family Guy Episode, which started this whole conversation, is NOT referring to the idea our "resident anarchists" are referring to. In my opinion, in order to make their argument (resident anarchists) more valid, they should probably use a different word, since the mass will utilize the general definition, I found.

If you are looking for a "ruler-less" government, that's one thing, if you promoting to the mass "anarchy", remember, they will think and define it by what they've been taught, and the definition that is in the traditional dictionary.

I prefer no "top ruler" since that will always open the system up to abuse.
 
Weird, I am literally taking the definition from the dictionary (Anarchy | Define Anarchy at Dictionary.com).
Dictionaries are not authoritative.

I assume, you are working along a different definition, which I am not privy to.
You are privy to it, I gave it to you. Without rulers. An-archy.

No one is arguing for a society without roads, legal systems or money.

I argue for a society based on voluntary relationships. No violence.
 
If that is the definition we are going off of, the original Family Guy Episode, which started this whole conversation, is NOT referring to the idea our "resident anarchists" are referring to.
No, it isn't.

In my opinion, in order to make their argument (resident anarchists) more valid, they should probably use a different word, since the mass will utilize the general definition, I found.
Been at this a few years. Differences of meaning allow for deeper conversations where the participants are sincere about discourse.

If you are looking for a "ruler-less" government
There is no government (institution which governs) without rulers.

I prefer no "top ruler" since that will always open the system up to abuse.
Allowing some people exclusive power creates abuse.

It doesn't matter if you give it to 100 people or 1. It doesn't matter if you elect them democratically or they come to power through hereditary means.

Power over other people is the issue, not how we arrange who gets that power over others. Arranging power relationships differently is just putting lipstick on a pig.

I'd love to have an intelligent discussion about this, but basically people divide into two camps. Those that understand anarchism and those who don't. It's hard to make progress with the latter. And frankly, really low ROI. It comes down to how people analyze social situations, ethics and what their own morality is. We live in a culture where morality is inherited by most (state schools, religion), not derived from first principles.

Anarchism is morality derived from principles, not whatever everyone else thinks is ok.
 
I am more of a realist than libertarian now. However, majority of libertarians are not the rich. Majority of libertarians are poor people wanting to be rich. It's a big difference.

The truly rich aren't hurt by socialism. Larry Page pays 1% income tax. Most of his "income" defined by increased wealth, is just his stock going up and that's not taxable.

Here I simply used IRS standard definition income =increased wealth + consumption and for guys like Larry Page, that consumption part is negligible.

Poor people that don't want to be rich would prefer socialism. Socialists agenda are friendly for those who choose to make 20 kids and can't afford it but hostile for those who choose to work hard.

Anarchy may be fine. Small government is enough for me. When that fails, just move to another country. Even in anarchy, what would stop somebody from seizing power and demand tax for everyone? In fact, we have that all the time. That mafia is called government. Fortunately your government is not all mighty. There are other competing government like chinese government, indonesian government, that compete for your talent and money.

Basically we all live in a steamed room. Yes it's not free. However, there is always a small hole up there. Pick the narrow path.

When one guy say you're free they're wrong. The hole is too small.
When people say they're not free, it's just self defeating.
 
I spent 20 minutes writing a post, but fuck it.

It's too easy to start a shitstorm here. You can't have a society where nobody rules, it would be chaos. Anybody that has argued for anarchy here has to admit that someone (or group, AHEM democracy) has to rule over a dispute. You can't kill somebody because they called you a faggot, and somebody has to enforce that.

America has fucked up democracy quite a bit with corruption, but it can't last forever; there will be a tipping point if things continue to get worse. But when it tips we'll just see a revised form of government (with actual accountability), not anarchy.

If you care about it that much, go buy a cheap ass private island and live there by yourself, that's as close as you'll ever get.
 
I spent 20 minutes writing a post, but fuck it.

It's too easy to start a shitstorm here. You can't have a society where nobody rules, it would be chaos. Anybody that has argued for anarchy here has to admit that someone (or group, AHEM democracy) has to rule over a dispute. You can't kill somebody because they called you a faggot, and somebody has to enforce that.

America has fucked up democracy quite a bit with corruption, but it can't last forever; there will be a tipping point if things continue to get worse. But when it tips we'll just see a revised form of government (with actual accountability), not anarchy.

If you care about it that much, go buy a cheap ass private island and live there by yourself, that's as close as you'll ever get.
I'm glad to hear you didn't waste any more of your time.

Yeah chaos would be bad. Like indecipherable economic signals, annual slaughter of thousands of innocent human beings, people being locked in cages for crimes that don't effect anyone else. Good thing we have the government to protect us from these things.

It was democracy that fucked up America, and how do you see government being held accountable? Anarchists get criticized for not having evidence of a functioning anarchist society, yet you believe in such a thing as accountable government. Neither of us may have real world examples, but shit, at least our conclusions are logically consistent.

Save yourself the trouble next time. When you make shallow arguments like this it shows just how dumb, indoctrinated, and cognitively broken you and other statists really are.
 
I'm glad to hear you didn't waste any more of your time.

Yeah chaos would be bad. Like indecipherable economic signals, annual slaughter of thousands of innocent human beings, people being locked in cages for crimes that don't effect anyone else. Good thing we have the government to protect us from these things.

It was democracy that fucked up America, and how do you see government being held accountable? Anarchists get criticized for not having evidence of a functioning anarchist society, yet you believe in such a thing as accountable government. Neither of us may have real world examples, but shit, at least our conclusions are logically consistent.

Save yourself the trouble next time. When you make shallow arguments like this it shows just how dumb, indoctrinated, and cognitively broken you and other statists really are.

I couldn't like this more than once so I'm just quoting you for more exposure.

Fuck the state and those that support it.
 
I spent 20 minutes writing a post, but fuck it.

It's too easy to start a shitstorm here. You can't have a society where nobody rules, it would be chaos. Anybody that has argued for anarchy here has to admit that someone (or group, AHEM democracy) has to rule over a dispute. You can't kill somebody because they called you a faggot, and somebody has to enforce that.

America has fucked up democracy quite a bit with corruption, but it can't last forever; there will be a tipping point if things continue to get worse. But when it tips we'll just see a revised form of government (with actual accountability), not anarchy.

If you care about it that much, go buy a cheap ass private island and live there by yourself, that's as close as you'll ever get.
How often do you not kill somebody for the sole reason you may get in trouble from the government?

Would you rather have competing security firms protecting you, or a monopoly on security dictated by the guy with a kill list on his desk who's dropped bombs on innocent American kids from UAV's?

The U.S. killed between (some estimates) 600k and 1 mil+ Iraqis during our invasion/occupation. That's a million dead people who hadn't done shit to us before we started bombing them.

Is that okay? Who's going to enforce that. Ah, the government's got it covered, it's cool.

They can murder at will, they can wipe their ass with the constitution - Wachovia bank got caught laundering $328 BILLION dollars to Mexican drug cartels. When they got caught, the guys they were working with had 7.5 tons of coke on them.

That's billion with a B. Why are we letting that insane war go on down there, with thousands of innocent people dying when we could stop it in a day and devalue cocaine. Because expensive coke is more profitable when you're in a position of power.. Bank of America, Western Union, Wells Fargo and a shit ton of others have been caught being involved.

The year after the bust, the recession hit, they all got billions of dollars in bailout money - They're making CRAZY money laundering drug money, and the government turns around and gives them BILLIONS of dollars in tax payer money.

If I get caught with a gram of coke or $100 in money earned from selling coke I'd go to prison for a LOOOONG time. There's big money in the prison biz too.

They get busted, here's billions in tax payer money, have fun. You just have to follow the lobbyist money a little further to see who really makes the laws in this country.

Beyond that Government, all forms, is evil by design. It's forced control. It's the right to initiate force and steal from people. And then use our (stolen)tax money on things like fighting the drug war, keeping drug offenders locked away for years and bombing innocent civilians in countries who've never harmed and aren't a threat to us.

I'll take my chances with being able to walk down the street and not kill a guy. If I fuck up the Government's still up on me by millions of people.

You know why all of these wars are going on, the drug war, the war on terrorism, wars on fucking phrases that accomplish nothing but the death of innocents and hatred all around the world?

Because fucktards in positions of power take bribes from rich fucktards who stand to profit off of the death millions of people and that's cool... But if some guy calls me a fag call the cops.

On top of that, you experience anarchy every day. I just got back from eating, saw some friends, not one cop or government official stopped me. Total anarchy. It was crazy. I'm surprised I didn't get killed.

Yeah, Government is evil. It's not necessary. It's forced control, unimaginably violent and wrong on every level.
 
King of the Hill was canceled for the Cleaveland Show. Seth McFarlane is a damn faggot.
 
King of the Hill was canceled for the Cleaveland Show. Seth McFarlane is a damn faggot.
Be careful with that language, Mr.

While I adore King of the Hill, calling someone a faggot is serious business. I suggest you heed Sup3rnova's advice, and notify your local police, judge and/or elected official. Seth McFarlane WILL have your head. Someone in government needs to pass the message along to Seth that murder is not appropriate retaliation for name-calling.
 
Fuck the state and those that support it.
FYI, they got you on film, tough guy.

pict205.jpg
 
It was democracy that fucked up America, and how do you see government being held accountable? Anarchists get criticized for not having evidence of a functioning anarchist society, yet you believe in such a thing as accountable government. Neither of us may have real world examples, but shit, at least our conclusions are logically consistent.

I am telling you - even if millions of people burn down Washington, government will not disappear. The most we can do to argue that is wait until we die, and see if there's any indication of it.

Can you even begin to imagine how we'd make a shift to an anarchical society without any leadership? Who would begin to make decisions?

That's why I think the best we could hope for is a government that's actually held accountable, not no government at all.
 
I couldn't like this more than once so I'm just quoting you for more exposure.

Fuck the state and those that support it.

Fuck yourself then, you pay taxes right? You may as well have handed over a gun that was used to kill an innocent person, you dickhead.

You argue on the internet about how evil the government is yet you give them hundreds/thousands/millions of your own dollars willingly. Nobody is forcing you to live here and support this corrupt regime, but you do because you enjoy your life.
 
Yeah, Government is evil. It's not necessary. It's forced control, unimaginably violent and wrong on every level.

If there was no government, what would stop "competing security firms" from becoming Somalian warlords that control with violence? Other security firms? Nonstop civil war? You think that becoming anarchist would suddenly eradicate evil and corruption?
 
There are alot of response which I will have to go back to later on, but my one question is, If there is no government, that means there is no courts. Where the the hell are you going to sue these people? And who will enforce your settlement?

Please, explain to me how you can sue someone when there is no government to enforce your settlement? Anarchy is defined as a state without government or law, Am I missing something? How can you sue someone with no courts??? There is no law!

p.S. I will go one by one and respond to each piece of the point outlined.

It'll be like in the Godfather, the heads of the families that you pay tribute to will meet and arbitrage a deal. (srsly, it's pretty close to this).

Which is why minimal government is the way to go, not complete anarchy.

My 2c.

If you look at this from a global scope, we're already living in an anarchist world, we have security firms (the governments) competing over talents. If you don't like it, you can leave. Pledge to a government that suits you. The fee? Taxes.
 
I am telling you - even if millions of people burn down Washington, government will not disappear. The most we can do to argue that is wait until we die, and see if there's any indication of it.

Can you even begin to imagine how we'd make a shift to an anarchical society without any leadership? Who would begin to make decisions?

That's why I think the best we could hope for is a government that's actually held accountable, not no government at all.

Believe it or not, I've actually contemplated all of this, and I'm not the first. But before I invest more valuable time in you, may I propose a rather radical idea?

Pick up a fucking book, learn about anarchy, get answers to your very basic questions that have been asked a million times before.

And don't say you've done your research, because it is exceedingly obvious that you haven't, based on your amateur questions.

It'll be like in the Godfather, the heads of the families that you pay tribute to will meet and arbitrage a deal. (srsly, it's pretty close to this).

Which is why minimal government is the way to go, not complete anarchy.

My 2c.

If you look at this from a global scope, we're already living in an anarchist world, we have security firms (the governments) competing over talents. If you don't like it, you can leave. Pledge to a government that suits you. The fee? Taxes.

I just finished writing a short article on why there's no such thing as minimal government, at least in the long term. I can link to it when it's published, if you'd like.
 
The problem is we are pretty far developed, so if we got rid of government at this moment, we'd be screwed. See there are crazy people in the world, whether they have illegal firearms, or control your food supply like your favorite supermarket. The people controlling the food you buy and air you breath (by not pumping fumes and acid rain into it) have to be regulated. Other wish they could stick a "grade A" label on your meat, when it really shitty meat, you eat it then you die. Understand?

If we were in times where large corporation did not control your lives to such a huge degree, tv commercials of the "safe" cars you buy, the clothes you wear, your home, or restaurants you visit (food inspectors), then we could be in some serious shit, and become the puppets of people with already power and no government to protect us.

Government is suppose to protect and keep order with its citizens, but not enslave them like some governments of the world. Think about your way of living and what your dependant on corporation do you have? Do you really trust them to have your best interest without a police/government watching them?
The problem with your analysis is that it assumes the people in government have any idea what they are doing - most of them are the same idiots you have to deal with at the DMV, except for the ones at the top who have figured out that government is a gravy train for them. This is because in government there is no accountability, that is, there is not connection from what they do, to reality.

In business, if you screw up, you lose money...your money. In government if you screw up, you lose the taxpayers money, you however are safe to go on losing as much money (or pocketing it) as you want.

This can all be summarized in one sentence: Everything Government touches turns into shit.

-DTM