Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Boea]

As I said, turn him into a harmonica playing goomba.

We would but since devolution doesn't exist we can't go Super Mario movie on him. We can only burn him as a witch.

Depends on the context, and the perspective. I think a goomba used to be a flunkie rogue from the speakeasy days, so that's probably as far as you are going to get with him being a goomba.

[Owlbread]

We would but since devolution doesn't exist we can't go Super Mario movie on him. We can only burn him as a witch.

If we can devolve a parliament and two national assemblies we can devolve a shite journalist, I say.

[Morrigi]

True liberty is simply a state of anarchy, and that is just impractical and not realistic.
If the one rule is no rules, how are you going to enforce it?
But that is a whole other can of worms. Restrictions on free speech outlined above make perfect sense.

True anarchy is total democracy. Total democracy mirrors the cultural ideas of the people better than any other form of government could.
True anarchy is not chaos, but a lack of rules impeding an individual's liberty to do as he pleases without harming others.
True anarchy lacks a powerful governing body that can be bribed and controlled by the rich, and is only as corrupt as the entire population of the anarchist state.

Unfortunately, true anarchy is generally unattainable on Earth due to the lust for power of a small percentage of the population.

[Devling]

I think we are mixing terms. TRUE anarchy is NO rules.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That is inaccurate. Anarchy is no government, not no rules.

[Devling]

Government is a collections of rules, and people enforcing them.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Problem with no enforcement: might as well be no rules at all. Therefore, no rules.

True anarchy IS attainable, just not sustainable. Instead of trying to bribe and control the powerful governing body, the rich BECOME the powerful governing body, bribing people instead.

Also, no rules makes this part

without harming others.

disappear.

[lorb]

Problem with no enforcement: might as well be no rules at all. Therefore, no rules.

True anarchy IS attainable, just not sustainable. Instead of trying to bribe and control the powerful governing body, the rich BECOME the powerful governing body, bribing people instead.

Also, no rules makes this part

without harming others.

disappear.

As MSH said: "Anarchy is no government, not no rules." There is no government that requires me to say "thank you" when people are nice to me but the "rule" or better call it "norm" to do so still exists. The absence of a body of people whose sole job is to enforce rules does not mean that there are no rules and no enforcement at all.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't really have the will to explain anarchy in full since I don't even believe in it myself, but there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia showing the whole thing.

The only thing I shall say further is that while governments are one source of rules, that does not make them the only possible source of rules.

[Sirus]

Problem with no enforcement: might as well be no rules at all. Therefore, no rules.

True anarchy IS attainable, just not sustainable. Instead of trying to bribe and control the powerful governing body, the rich BECOME the powerful governing body, bribing people instead.

Also, no rules makes this part

without harming others.

disappear.

As MSH said: "Anarchy is no government, not no rules." There is no government that requires me to say "thank you" when people are nice to me but the "rule" or better call it "norm" to do so still exists. The absence of a body of people whose sole job is to enforce rules does not mean that there are no rules and no enforcement at all.

Or, more likely, the unjustly rich will have people on their payroll to protect their goods. Except in an anarchy they won't have any restrictions on how they protect the goods.

[Devling]

Again, this seems to be an argument over the defination of a word.
I understand that in the USA anarchy means "No rules, or rules are not being enforced", but in other places it means a different thing.

[alexandertnt]

True anarchy is not chaos, but a lack of rules impeding an individual's liberty to do as he pleases without harming others.

A lack of certain rules or all rules? Without any rules why would I not harm others and what would be done if I did, and with some rules, what is to enforce them?

The absence of a body of people whose sole job is to enforce rules does not mean that there are no rules and no enforcement at all.

Well, people would have to effectively enforce the rules somehow if they exist. And it would seem the most effective way to do that would be to form an organisation for managing and enforcing the rules. So I dont see how Anarchy wouldn't just collapse back into a government.

[Devling]

Well, people would have to effectively enforce the rules somehow if they exist. And it would seem the most effective way to do that would be to form an organisation for managing and enforcing the rules. So I dont see how Anarchy wouldn't just collapse back into a government.

This is why anarchists seem silly to me. Alex said this more eloquently then I possible could.

[SalmonGod]

Anarchy literally means "No Rulers".  It does NOT mean "No Rules".  This has many ramifications.

It can mean rules, so long as they're not enforced onto an unwilling population by a ruling minority.  In essence, enforcement of a rule is primarily in the interest of a community managing its own well-being, than it can be compatible with anarchy.  If enforcement of a rule is primarily for the benefit of one section of the community at the cost of another, it most likely represents a form of rulership, and is incompatible with anarchy.

It can mean government, so long as that government is strictly organizational, and not authoritative.  When the government enforces rules that are negotiated and agreed to by all effected parties, it is compatible with anarchy.  When the government creates rules and then enforces them, and those effected by them have little to no say, it is incompatible with anarchy.  It is rulership.

Yes, the above leaves plenty of room for grey areas.  Such is life.  The very nature of an ideal is that it isn't obtainable.  Everyone has their ideologies, and all ideologies are based on ideals, hence the very root of the word.  The most common response to a post like this is "Such a utopian ideal is so naive!", but I could say that about literally every political stance ever.

The very concept of a person being rich is incompatible with anarchy.  Wealth is a form of authority that is unavoidably hierarchical and generally not mutually agreed upon by the whole community that is effected by this distribution.  So no.  If there are rich people to bribe and force their way into a position of rulership, then there was no anarchy in the first place.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The very concept of a person being rich is incompatible with anarchy.

*cough*