Print

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

[mainiac]

Both sides are now (fallaciously) arguing semantics instead of sticking to the topic.

Topic: Liberal Serf Squad.  I think this idea needs to get back closer to the source material which is Dennis the peasant.  Liberal end game should be an anarcho-syndicalist commune.  Conservative endgame should be strange women lying in ponds distributing swords as a means of government.  Political action should be dark ages which means that parliaments don't have any power.  Society become more conservative when a wandering knight accidentally murders half a wedding festival and then marries into the family and rules over the people he sociopathically decimated.  Society becomes more liberal when... wait, how does society ever become more liberal?

[Ampersand]

When the Virgins get their hands on a knight that happens to knock at their castle doors?

[mainiac]

When the Virgins get their hands on a knight that happens to knock at their castle doors?

Imagine Gallahad declaring his support for unionization with confusion on his face because he doesn't even know what it means or why he supports it.  Meanwhile Zoot rubs her conniving hands in the background.

[Rezan]

@Ampersand:

Certainly there can be laws and rules. Just no one in specific to enforce or create them. The lawlessness is implied because of humanity's shortcomings, not the shortcomings of anarchy. There is no implication in anarchy that there has to be violence, confusion or similar. These are the traits we bring to anarchy, not the traits anarchy bring to us.

It's not viable at this stage though, obviously.

[Ampersand]

In that case, I agree 100%

[Yanlin]

Sigh.

Anarchy = barbarism.

In barbarism, everybody is in charge. Everyone makes their own laws. Same with anarchy. There's simply no one united governing body. But that just means everybody is the government and enacts their own laws.

My laws say that I am allowed to steal your stuff. I'll steal your stuff. Your laws say I am not allowed to steal your stuff and thus you can kill me. Etc.

[Rezan]

Get a dictionary, Yanlin.

[LiteralKa]

Sigh.

Anarchy = barbarism.

In barbarism, everybody is in charge. Everyone makes their own laws. Same with anarchy. There's simply no one united governing body. But that just means everybody is the government and enacts their own laws.

My laws say that I am allowed to steal your stuff. I'll steal your stuff. Your laws say I am not allowed to steal your stuff and thus you can kill me. Etc.

My laws say that you are wrong.

[Yanlin]

Get a dictionary, Yanlin.

I'm not making a definition here. I'm making a comparison.

It's all a game of semantics really. But point being, anarchy is the worst possible form of bureaucracy and government.

[Rezan]

If it were a form of government or beaurocracy, wouldn't that imply there was government or beaurocracy in it? Technically it's not a form of either. D:

[Yanlin]

Exactly. It's a contradiction.

A glaring one at that.

When there is no government, people form communities. Communities fight with each other. Communities eventually band together. Communities form a union. Union appoints a government... Anarchy is just a phase.

[LiteralKa]

Exactly. It's a contradiction.

A glaring one at that.

When there is no government, people form communities. Communities fight with each other. Communities eventually band together. Communities form a union. Union appoints a government... Anarchy is just a phase.

But *being* an anarchist is a way of life!

[Yanlin]

If you're being an anarchist, you're being an idiot. It basically means you are a barbarian. Not to mention a criminal.

[LiteralKa]

If you're being an anarchist, you're being an idiot. It basically means you are a barbarian. Not to mention a criminal.

You can't be a criminal with no laws!

[Yanlin]

Problem is, a law is only a law if it is enforced. I'd imagine you can't enforce your laws. But the current government sure can!