what is some feelings on if anarchy is good or bad.What do you think?

If people are in a riot they say that anarchists are running amock but in reality it means complete freedom.

Anarchy is good. But watch out with repeating post and topics. No stealing ;)

people say anarchy is total chaos but that is in correct.

QUOTE=Psycho Bound;2521691]Anarchy is good. But watch out with repeating post and topics. No stealing ;)[/QUOTE]

depends on the cause of the anarchy.

In the true sense of the word, anarchy means without leader, without scruples, without morals; makes me think anarchy is not an ideal state.

a lot of modern democracies had several anarchies, after fall of governments, ect.

again some were bad, for there people others good, but to be in Anarchy does not mean to be in a state of caos.

a lot of modern democracies had several anarchies, after fall of governments, ect.

again some were bad, for there people others good, but to be in Anarchy does not mean to be in a state of caos.

if there was complete anarchy i could take a sawed off shotgun stick it in your mouth pull the trigger then have tea with the family later with no repercution is tha good or bad? you did nothing to me i just wanted to test out my new shotgun

"Anarchy is the sure consequence of tyranny; or no power that is not limited by laws can ever be protected by them”

John Milton

A culture without property, or in which creators can't get paid, is anarchy, not freedom.

Lawrence Lessig

There is no greater evil than anarchy.

Sophocles


Tyranny and anarchy are never far apart.

Jeremy Bentham

If all is peaceful, its fine, but if things get chaotic there is no one to call. But it seems to me that humans don't really like to live in complete anarchy. In my experience people often end up picking an authority figure to lead them and make choices for them anyway before too long.

what is some feelings on if anarchy is good or bad.What do you think?I'll toss back a question....

Order, good or bad?

In the true sense of the word, anarchy means without leader, without scruples, without morals; makes me think anarchy is not an ideal state.

The thread is based on the political ideolgy of anarchist. Not on the deffinition of the word "anarchy"

Thank you very much bro, for that very good point.

I'll toss back a question....

Order, good or bad?

Depends, whats your deffinition of order?

if there was complete anarchy i could take a sawed off shotgun stick it in your mouth pull the trigger then have tea with the family later with no repercution is tha good or bad? you did nothing to me i just wanted to test out my new shotgun

Thats not what the politcal ideolgy of anarchist means at all.

Let me state this AGAIN
IN THE SENCE WE ARE SPEAKING OF, ANARCHY DOES NOT MEAN CHAOS OR DISORDER. IT MEANS AN AREA WITHOUT A LARGE, FORMAL GOVERNMENT RESTRICTING FREE EXPRESSION AND THE PROTECTION OF INDVISUALISM. aswell as quite many more things

thats not what the politcal ideolgy of anarchist means at all.

Let me state this again
in the sence we are speaking of, anarchy does not mean chaos or disorder. It means an area without a large, formal government restricting free expression and the protection of indvisualism. aswell as quite many more things

thank you again for your many posts.

Sir, I do not think that you are entirely understanding the scope of the term, "anarchy." You will have to point to a specific anarchist movement, or identify a specific figure you would like to focus your discussion on.

Depends, whats your deffinition of order?Then it is likely the same with anarchy. Anarchy means lack of a leader. At least, that is the original meaning.

Well, anarchism really arises from a general disaffection with traditional concepts of government. Right now, we actually do live under something resembling an anarchic system.

Firstly, the government of your state actually interacts more directly in your life than the federal government ever will, and it controls nearly all of the services and institutions and infrastructure that you use with any degree of regularity. You drive mostly on state or local roads, for example.

However, even then it is the local government that determins things like zoning and whether or not to renew someone's permit. A Wal-Mart can't just put a store up anywhere they want to, for example; if the charter of your city considers the place where Wal-Mart wants to put up the new store to be within the city limits, the federal government or the state government isn't going to just come along and force the city to give Wal-Mart the permit.

Even then, you have to deal with homeowners' associations, and they have varying degrees of power depending on where you go.

On top of city hall, though, is the government of your county, and the rules regarding that vary state-by-state.

It's all very confusing, but the functional reality is that our government is a very fluid thing.

Of course, under some definitions of anarchy, the town of Lansing Michigan, for example, wouldn't have a right to create a city hall and govern themselves as they wished. They would not be able to set any rules about what happens in their area. They would be under the gun to allow for anything that transpires. They couldn't even set up a basid regulatory structure. To some people, that's the ultimate in freedom, but the people who live in the city of Lansing, Michigan might actually want to form their own government. Would the anarchist hold a gun to these people's heads and tell them not to, or would they just leave them to do as they please?

Even anarchism needs a thorough definition behind it besides just a bunch of disaffected ranting and raving.

Personally, I think that "self-government" is a better ideal to reach for than "anarchy." That's what the US was really founded on, anyway.

then it is likely the same with anarchy. Anarchy means lack of a leader. At least, that is the original meaning.

So true your good at this!!!

Wow my other thread is booming!!!!!

"There can be no freedom without law."

Think about it... how would you lay claim to any property? You own nothing in a system of anarchy... absolutely nothing. You aren't free to keep what you earn because there are no laws that say what you earn belongs to you; you aren't free to own a house, a car, or any significant property because there are no laws that assert your ownership of them. It's every man, or group for themselves.

.how would you lay claim to any property?

say hello to my shot gun ;)

say hello to my shot gun ;)

Oh, brother... you know what they say? Live by the sword, die by the sword. Unless you're some kind of demon of darkness tactical guru and have an nigh unlimited amount of ammunition at your disposal, I doubt that would get you very far.

Oh, brother... you know what they say? Live by the sword, die by the sword. Unless you're some kind of demon of darkness tactical guru and have an nigh unlimited amount of ammunition at your disposal, I doubt that would get you very far.

Yes you have a very good point, but They will have to kill me to get my property, and if i am dead i prolly won't need it much anymore.

And i will take some of them with me.

Plus, if i am sitting on my door steps with a few guns and a couple of bad ass dogs at my feet, i think if creeps want to steal peoples property, they will go for the easier target across the street :D

Yes you have a very good point, but They will have to kill me to get my property, and if i am dead i prolly won't need it much anymore.

And i will take some of them with me.

Plus, if i am sitting on my door steps with a few guns and a couple of bad ass dogs at my feet, i think if creeps want to steal peoples property, they will go for the easier target across the street :D

Uh huh... well that's great and all, but sitting on your door steps with your poochies leaves you nice and open. A man with a rifle and half a sense will just shoot you from behind cover from a block away before you even know what's going on. The only way to be completely secure from getting your property stolen from you is to own none. In that case, the only thing you have to lose is your life should somebody be so inclined to decide it is of any real value. Which is another interesting concept if you think about it... there are no laws for or against slavery in a system of Anarchy.

Another problem with Anarchy is that there's no real economy. No standardized legal tender such as the dollar or euro. If there is any economy, it's a local economy based on individual needs and value is placed on items dependent upon their level of necessity. In that case it isn't even an Anarchy at all as much as it's a rudimentary level society.

Travel is extremely limited because there is no way to fill the gas up in your car. Nobody owns gas stations... what's the point if there's no way to profit? Society in general just stagnates in Anarchy... the only thing that really benefits in such a system (or lack thereof) is the ability for an individual to become completely self-reliant, or for a family to do so.

Either way, in a practical sense there is no such thing as Anarchy anyway because humans are a social creature and therefore interaction between one another is inevitable. There will always be on some level a system that governs the rules by which people interact. Whether it be common courtesy, mutually beneficial agreements, or a system of standardized laws.

Ok you win hands down.

And welcome sir, i am glade i helped you get your first three posts :cool:

Ok you win hands down.

And welcome sir, i am glade i helped you get your first three posts :cool:

Thank you :)

people say anarchy is total chaos but that is in correct.

It's naive to think it isn't. Anarchy is an ideal, chaos is the result.

Just like hypocrisy is the result of theology.

True but the real definition means freedom

True but the real definition means freedom

From first breath no one is truly free. I am not even sure if complete and total freedom exists in nature. Limiting our freedom can be something as benign as a relationship a parent or life itself. Consequences put a damper on any notions of absolute freedom.

Can you explain?

Can you explain?

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Well anyway, i have to go now. I will check back later.

Anarchism is a nice concept on paper because Government can really be evil sometimes. Some of the modern forms of oppression and control cannot exist without a government or a State.

However maybe government is an unneccesary evil because modern civilization would not be possible without the statist structures and
the division of labor among members of society. The division of labor is at the core of modern state societies. With the division of labor
everyone does something and then we exchange the products of our labor with each other with money - also called a medium of exchange. The division of labor requires order and you need to make sure that everyone really does his share of work. The division of work would not be possible without a state system and this indeed requires a government.

Also Modern societies contain far too many people for them to be able to manage themselves without a central government system.

Anarchism is only possible if we want to go back to live in decentrilzed and small-numbered communes, however this means that the technological benefits of modern civilization and the division of labor which makes it possible for more goods and services to be produced would have to be given up.