• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Anarchy

FinnMacCool said:
If I had a choice between paying higher prices for something or letting people suffer all over the world, I think I would choose the former.

Classic socialist myth. The poor economic climate in third world companies create the terrible working conditions, not corporations. Ironically, the corporations help these countries by providing jobs and capital that would not have existed otherwise.


FinnMacCool said:
Your right, but I believe that can be solved by replacing their profit for profit. In exchange for them conducting business by putting social responsiblity ahead of profitability, they would be rewarded.

What is your deffinition of social responsibility?
 
Last edited:
You guys make some excellent points. I have to force myself to play devils advocate a lot to find some answers. I still aren't completely sure of my stance on economics but things like this help. Thanks.
 
http://www.mises.org/story/1987

Galenrox, Anarchist, and the others,

I've seen mention of a kind of "slow phase out" of the state, toward anarchy. (I too and anarcho-capitalist.) However, What makes you believe that would happen? For every reduction in the scope of the state, there are either more expanding the scope, or the reduction is temporal and reinstalled by other leaders a few years later.

Please, read the Mises link above my Lew Rockwell, and the LeFerve link below (in my signature) The Nature of Man and His Government, then get back to me.

Both, I would bet you could find informative, if you have not read them already.

I've been trying, more sublty to get a threat like this going. One called, I think, "Insight into Libertarains,", and the other "What's wrong with the Deocrats Plan."

I'd like to keep them busy, with more than libertarains and anarchist agreeing with each other, which is generally easy to do.
 
Kelzie said:
I'm just going to post one of my many, MANY issues with anarchy (come on, I'm a commie, what did you expect). I'll give you that most "groups" of people will form some kind of informal government. It's in human nature after all. And these informal "groups" might form some sort of connection with other neighboring "groups". Medical research would be gone. Gone. Wiped off the face of the planet. Governments give medical breakthroughs a way of not only spreading, but profiting. And that's why people do it. Nobody, but nobody is going to try and find a cure for cancer when it will only affect a couple thousand people. No money would be made. A government provides a connection between more people than we could do alone. That's why we created it in the first place.


pbfft. Medical reseach gone... what EVER.

You do Realize cancer is a MINOR KILLER right? I mean it's one of the largest killers in the developed world, but in the grand scheme of things, MINOR. More people used to die from diseases we have wiped out 20:1 what cancer killed now, some cases 100:1, before the CDC, NIH, or any government medical agency.

What you have said is, without government to put the star on top of the christmas tree, there really is no christmas tree whatsoever. Which is an insult to the MILLIONS of people who do medical research outside the perview of government or government funding. Disgraceful.

Furthermore, why necessarily is find a cure for cancer a good thing, if it means diverting resources from food production that could save millions? When government STEALS to fund it's programs, it MUST hurt more people more, than those it "helps."
 
Kelzie said:
And, might I add, you have WAY to much faith in corporations. Why do you think we have anti-monopoly laws? Because that is what corporations naturally do. They seek to maximize profits. Without those laws, they would stick it to the little people. They would have no reason not to. And as soon as one of the "little people" tried to challenge them by opening a rival, they would drop their price and put them out of business. We've seen it happen before. It will happen again without laws.

What was the Origin of Monolpoly? the State. Governments used to confer right of monolpoly upon businesses.

Should there be no interference or violence committed, monopolies could not be abusive.

Most abusive monopolies also have explicit licience or assistance from the state. Walmart using eminent domain to set up on choice land. Mansanto using the state to set up law and legal precident for its abuse. Henry Ford using the National Guard, Rockefeller also. AND THESE COMPANIES ARE NOT SUED UNDER ANTI-TRUST LAWS. Ever notice the RICHEST companies benefit from special favor by the state, or law created by the state (Haliburton, Boeing, and ALL banks!)

What happens when a company provides a superior product, service, or both, and consumers, through their own choice, choose the companies product over other products (and in the case of Software and operating systems, over FREE PRODUCTS), and the government steps in, and dismantles the company? CONSUMERS SUFFER.

Monopolies ONLY hurt people when they have state help that either exempts them from prosecution or prevents competition. Monopolies that emrge from normal market activities, without law or violence to aid them, BENEFIT THE PEOPLE.

Hell, anti-trust laws were used against companies with 7% market share (A&P). WOW really monopoly there. AND actually by the time the suit was finished, A&P was down to something like 50 stores nationwide, because A&P was not a monopoly.


If mom and pop stores, or inefficient businesses lose ground because they do not satisfy consumer demand, why is that bad? They waste resources, time and money.

Mind you, I don't care for corporations (especially since they are established by the state, and well, "no state, no corporation", at least as currently set up), nor do I think corporations should be treated as "people" either.
 
Kelzie said:
That was not socialism OR communism, and I know you're smarter than that galen. Both are based off of a democracy, which I think we can all agree the USSR did not have.

You're right, the USSR, China, Nazi-Germany, Cambodia, those are all just the end result of socialism or "communism."

They suceeded in putting the power of the WHOLE ECONOMY in the hands of the state. That power over food, shelter, clothing, money, medicine, water, steel, oil, coal, electricity, everything. Lord Acton warned us, POWER TENDS TO CORRUPT ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY!

All Socialist Germany did was put everything in nice order for Nazi Hilter. All Communist Russia did, was put everything in nice order for Stalin and Mao.

Devient evil people are attracted to power, expecially the power over life and death. What fool would imagine that in a world such as ours, where these people exist, we give them the tool to execute their evils.

A powerful interventionist state is simply dangling bait for the evil in our world.

America and the "west" choose the dangerous path of "the middle way." A dangerous, thread thin tightrope, that could fall to economic collapse or tyranny just as equally.

THAT'S why government is NECESSARY, government MADE IT THAT WAY. duh!

They chose policies, that if left uncontrolled, would lead to economic or social collapse, or be still strong enough to be wielded by a dictator.

ALL DEBTS MUST BE PAID. ALWAYS, in one way or another, they alway are. The hurried and impatient expansion of the US middle way, IS CREDIT BORROWED AGAINST THE FUTURE. The Future has this little problem of being UNKNOWN, and thereofr ensured no gaurantee in ability to pay back past debt, either in dollar terms, or other economic cost (pollution, disease, over expansion, insect infestation, water shortage, or what have you). IT WILL BE PAID. The ONLY way we can afford it now, without "borrowing" more, or stealing from others, is a return to REAL CAPITALISM. It's the only system efficient and productive enough to let up escape collapse or tyranny. One will turn this nation into wasteland, the other will choke it to death.
 
Kelzie said:
And why is it that you think there would exist some sort of world market when the definition of justice differs for each community?

You're joking right? In an anarchy the media would be sold to the highest bidder. There would be no reason for them not to be. Who cares if they say outright, blantant lies as long as they get paid. Who's going to stop them?

Well, because the few time that anarchy has existed other than pre-industrial times, it hasn't done all that hot. I know, I know, Spain, right? Well, what huge advances did you hear out of Spain then? Or did they just manage to keep their people fed? My congrats to them. Looks like anarchy served them well. We all know they have a government now.

First, Justice already has different meanings in different communities. Second, government does not define Justice, common use does and English dictionaries describe it. Third, Government should not define words across the Language in the first place (see Orwell's 1984).

Who is going to stop the Media from saying outright lies now? THEY HAVE THE UNEQUIVOCABLE RIGHT TO LIE, RIGHT NOW, EVEN UNDER THEIR FCC LICENCE. At least, according to several FEDERAL COURTS and FCC rulings! wake up.

When have people with guns and money (government) allowed people to be free of oppression? Government must be dismantled and buried. It's an archaic tool for fearful times filled with superstition, demons, and foriegners. It's not suitable for Humans in the Enlightened era.

Incidentally, what time was spain anarchic (not really sure). but I may be able to tell you some of the advances.

Also, such accusations of unproductivity beg the question, were the productions and advances made by man BECUASE of government or INSPITE of government? Becuase, a GREAT MANY were in spite of the government's attempt to hinder them. If the notion is that governments produces advances, then what recent advances have come out of: North Korea, Mongolia, Zimbabwe, The Sudan, Liberia, Lybia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Eduador, etc etc etc.

Notice that the more free people are, the more advance come from them? The less free, even with governments, the fewer or NO adances come out of them? IT'S NOT AN ACCIDENT. Taken to the logical end then, the most free people are those free from government. There are more countries now without advances (or significant ones). This is to show, that government is NOT the source of production and advance. It MAY aid, from time to time, and not necessarily in the best way, but it's pattern through ALL of human history, has been to LIMIT THE REAL PRODUCERS, humans.
 
Last edited:
FinnMacCool said:
The public has different perceptions of what is 'ethical' and what is 'moral'. And even those who know what the corporations are doing, they will not care because they will have no choice but to buy from them. The gov't is the only thing powerful enough to control the corporations

Ever notice that the largest corporations come from the countries with the largest governments? It's Not a coincidence. Governments create a problem, and then say "look we're the only one's strong enough to control the problem."

It's like asking a man to break your healthy legs, and then put casts on them, because he's the only one who can. pbfft.
 
galenrox said:
But where does the government get its power from? What do you think the government could do if tomorrow every us citizen decided to act like they don't exist?
Government only has power because the people give it to them. Thus all of the power from the government could be easily (and more effectively) replicated without the government's presence.
And what you're talking about is the way people react towards business NOW, without taking into account the possibility that somehow the presence of government and the role it plays in business somehow frames how they percieve and react to business. People percieve monitoring how businesses act as the job of the government, not the public, thus they just don't worry about it. If they knew full well that it was their job to make sure things are on the up and up things would be quite different.


This stems to my concept of social atrpohy. When someone else does something for you, you no longer do it for yourself, or as well as you could if you kept at it. People don't pay attention to the corps, because they percieve government to be doing it, and therefore the do not bother. Lo and Behold, when they should be doing it, they don't know how. Poeple don't help the poor as much as they should, because government is doing it (ignoring the role government has in making those poor people poor, or better said, preventing them from not being poor anymore). If government does everything for everyone, no one will do anything, and civiliation will collaspe,. What's more, just about the only thing government does WELL consistantly, is kill people.
 
galenrox said:
The theory isn't perfect, but it's a work in progress. There are areas that are more complex and would require more planning, but in the end, the world without government may seem scary since you've never seen it, but it's just like now, except better.

Just about this, no system of social order is perfect. Never will be, never can be. Anarchists and Libertarains are quick to recognize this. Prefection, on earth, is a fiction. Statist will typically say, however, that a better state, better planning, better leadership, or better obedience will establish perfect social order on earth.

One size does NOT fit all.
 
I'm anarchist in a way. As I see it, anarchy is only for responsible people who know how to act maturely, and simply, people as a whole aren't ready for anarchy yet, as we haven't even managed to as a society stay at least marginally informed.


Now, anarchy does have Government, but its not just there, like it currently is. ITs formed by responsible people coming togethor to work toward a certain interest. I think a Statist only (no federal) would be considered in the anarchy realm, so you would have states you can live in, and they would eventually be broken into local governments, and local governments would probably have alot of power, and the state government wouldn't really govern much, it would only serve as a representation of local governments at some level to talk about commerence, treaties etc. and serve as a head to making deals with other states via this representation body.


thats semi-anarchy to me, its not really true anarchy, but I think it makes sense..
 
saffron said:
Isn't anarchy what is happening in Afghanistan and the Taliban?

not really. The Taliban WAS the government. They also now have a president again.

Some areas are somewhat anarchic, and they have been more productive than EVER in their history. Record acreage and tonage of poppies and heroin are coming out of afghanistan. It may not be people's ideal form of production, but black market prices make it extremely attractive to the farmers. The could be growing wheat, rice, trees, or something, but this is yet another example of how the state makes problems. Hopefully, they'll use the money to build schools.
 
Hahaha, id love to talk about anarchism, I have to write a 45 page Socialist Thought Journal for one of my classes and it's due on Wed.
 
RightatNYU said:
Hahaha, id love to talk about anarchism, I have to write a 45 page Socialist Thought Journal for one of my classes and it's due on Wed.

45 pages of "Ug SMASH!" shouldn't be too hard.


I'll help you out.

Socialist Doctrine by Libertarian_Knight

Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! ....

the end
 
libertarian_knight said:
45 pages of "Ug SMASH!" shouldn't be too hard.


I'll help you out.

Socialist Doctrine by Libertarian_Knight

Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! Ug SMASH! ....

the end

*copy* *paste*

alright, 44 more to go....
 
galenrox said:
Here's a good starting line for ya:
When I think of people who support instituting socialism, I am reminded of what Oscar Wilde said about second marriages: "Hope in the face of experience"
Then I think the rest should be sophomoric insults about Marx and Lenin.

Im not even being facetious when i say that im taking that line.
 
Perhaps a socialist critique of capitalism would help.

BLAH BLAH BLAH wage slavery BLAH BLAH bourgeoise BLAH BLAH BLAH "free" market BLAH immoral system BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. Exploitation BLAH BLAH imperialism YADA YADA neo-liberalism ETC ETC, BLAH BLAH proletariat BLAH BLAH workers revolution. BLAH BLAH quote BLAH BLAH Chomsky:

"BLAH BLAH manufacturing consent BLAH BLAH concision YADA media YADA YADA......................................................"

BLAH BLAH [insert oppresed minority here] ETC ETC 3rd world BLAH BLAH social justice YADA YADA...........................
 
I fail to see how any rational individual can honestly think Anarchy can work. It can't. It's a horrific system unless modified to the point at which it no longer resembles actual anarchy. The term anarchy itself connotes badness, lawlessness.

The State will always be necessary in some form or another, because people are, on average, not fit to be left to their own devices. You can't have a society in which everyone is relying on the personal fortitude and honestly and cooperation of others. Out of the monkeysphere, it needs to have some coersion and punishment/reward conditioning system.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
I fail to see how any rational individual can honestly think Anarchy can work. It can't. It's a horrific system unless modified to the point at which it no longer resembles actual anarchy. The term anarchy itself connotes badness, lawlessness.

The State will always be necessary in some form or another, because people are, on average, not fit to be left to their own devices. You can't have a society in which everyone is relying on the personal fortitude and honestly and cooperation of others. Out of the monkeysphere, it needs to have some coersion and punishment/reward conditioning system.

The VAST majority of people can be left to their own devices that vast majority of the time.

If you'd imagine most people would run amok raping and pillaging, it may actually say more for your own psyche, than others. If you, or others, are not capable of controlling yourselves like Human Beings, fine, just let the rest of us with self control have our own place to live at least.

but no, the thugs of the world can't even grant us that little request can they?
 
curt said:
Perhaps a socialist critique of capitalism would help.

BLAH BLAH BLAH wage slavery BLAH BLAH bourgeoise BLAH BLAH BLAH "free" market BLAH immoral system BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. Exploitation BLAH BLAH imperialism YADA YADA neo-liberalism ETC ETC, BLAH BLAH proletariat BLAH BLAH workers revolution. BLAH BLAH quote BLAH BLAH Chomsky:

"BLAH BLAH manufacturing consent BLAH BLAH concision YADA media YADA YADA......................................................"

BLAH BLAH [insert oppresed minority here] ETC ETC 3rd world BLAH BLAH social justice YADA YADA...........................

14,000 words later, i officially hate socialism even more.

and yes galen, i totally used that quote, attributed to "a wise man once said..."
 
Galen, I agree with you on that subject.

Archy is defined as government, state, or otherwise. Therefore monarchy means essentially, one ruler, or otherwise. An, means not, opposite, etc. There for Anarchy is the absence of government, state, etc. And should not be equated with chaos, unless Archy meant order, but it doesn't. Take communism for instance, the state in its forms will have disappeared, yet society will be quite organized.
 
Comrade Brian said:
Therefore monarchy means essentially, one ruler, or otherwise. An, means not, opposite, etc.

Question about what you said about monarchy, if monarchy is essentially one ruler of a government then what about despotism. Does that come from a word?
 
Che said:
Question about what you said about monarchy, if monarchy is essentially one ruler of a government then what about despotism. Does that come from a word?

No, not exactly.

Mono means one.

Archy means State.

Despot comes from despot, a despot is a ruler who came by force, and rules by force and fear, as in violent means, often used to describe 3rd world military juntas, who often use forced labor directly, but its basically if you can repress, and keep it steady, and come to power, then you deserve it.

Monarchy is typically not as bad, monarchy is usually more stable and set up, it usually is repressive, as all states are, but tends to also follow rules it set itself to.
 
galenrox said:
Damn straight, when my dad pointed that out to me, I was awestruck by the simple wisdom behind it.

And to technocratic utilitarian, what? Is the only reason you're not out raping, pillaging, and murdering the law? I'd certainly hope not!

You're not talking about anarchy, you're talking about chaos. Anarchy is the absence of law, chaos is the absence of order. If that's lost on you you really need to practice thinking outside of the box.

In fact, it is order, that allows for law. Even if there is a government in place, there can be rampant disorder (afghanistan, the Sudan, etc), and you can see, the law is generally useless there at times. Order produces, among MANY THINGS, government; not the other way around.

Governments are not the originators of order, at best, they coerce people into a different order, and not necessarily a better one either.
 
Comrade Brian said:
Monarchy is typically not as bad, monarchy is usually more stable and set up, it usually is repressive, as all states are, but tends to also follow rules it set itself to.

well, the monarchy obeys the rules it sets for itself, because it changes the rules it sets at will. Henry VIII anyone? Geroge II, etc etc etc etc etc. It's easy to obey the rules, when the rules are simply the direct expression of one's will.

The King says " I don't like chocolate, therefor I will ban all chocolate." Since the king is not going to eat chocolate, see how easy it is for him to obey his rules?
 
Back
Top Bottom