Who here believes in anarchy, the belief that everyone shouldn't be controlled by the government and laws, other than me? I'm a Christian so don't get anarchist and antichrist confused they are two different words!
Anarchy
I used to believe when I was 13. It would be wonderful if we didn't need any states, polices, governments, etc. But we should always remember, that all people more or less are eager to do evil, so we need some rules to protect ourselves from one another. And we need some people that would control if this rules are obeyed. [Well, I guess in my country the government does exactly the opposite, but it is still better than if we had no rules 
].
Note that communism was also a 'wonderful' idea, and if you would like to know how did it work in reality, my travel agency invites you to visit Poland, Lithuania, Russia or Ukraine
.
].
Note that communism was also a 'wonderful' idea, and if you would like to know how did it work in reality, my travel agency invites you to visit Poland, Lithuania, Russia or Ukraine
.| the_mariska wrote: |
| I used to believe when I was 13. It would be wonderful if we didn't need any states, polices, governments, etc. |
Nailed it.
When you are young and ignorant you think it's a good idea, then when you grow up and get a little smarter, you realize that there are a lot of idiots out there that you really do need protection from.
I mean, imagine what this forum would be like if the moderators didn't (*cough*) do thier job (*cough*) and protect you from people like me who would not hesitate to slam you up one side and down the other repeatedly because your beliefs are rediculous?
Now, imagine if what I were talking about wasn't on an on-line forum, but in real life? Now, (you don't have to imagine this, becuase I DO own all of the guns I would use), imagine I was your neighbor, and wanted your house so my kids would have a place to play... I could easily take out all my guns and start killing you and your family and take your land. I could rape your girl friend (or mom, I'm guessing you're too young to have a girl friend or you wouldn't have started this topic in the first place). And there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do about it because I have too many guns.
So you see, you really do need police to protect you from people like me.
| Quote: |
| So you see, you really do need police to protect you from people like me. Wink |
That's what I was dealing to. Wasn't your post adressed to me or haven't you read it till the end? BTW. Thank God that I live so far away from you
| the_mariska wrote: | ||
That's what I was dealing to. Wasn't your post adressed to me or haven't you read it till the end? BTW. Thank God that I live so far away from you |
No, my post was directed at the 12 year old that started this topic. I was simply using your statement about getting over it by 13 years old.
(BTW, in real life, you'd want me as your neighbor, especially if the fertilizer hit the ventilator...
)1) Anarchy can't exist. At least not permanently. As one government disappears, another forms to take it's place. There may be temporary periods of anarchy, but no true anarchy.
2) As a Christian, you are required to follow the laws of God - most notably of those laws, the Ten Commandments. You can never be a true anarchist if you are to follow God's laws.
3) Rules are important. They protect everyone. With rules, there is some evil and it's punished. With no rules, evil will spread like disease - nothing to cure it. We'd live in a world of rape, murder, and crime - nothing good.
2) As a Christian, you are required to follow the laws of God - most notably of those laws, the Ten Commandments. You can never be a true anarchist if you are to follow God's laws.
3) Rules are important. They protect everyone. With rules, there is some evil and it's punished. With no rules, evil will spread like disease - nothing to cure it. We'd live in a world of rape, murder, and crime - nothing good.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| becuase I DO own all of the guns I would use |
So do you already have this one in your collection?
SoulSphere said: Who here believes in anarchy, the belief that everyone shouldn't be controlled by the government and laws, other than me? I'm a Christian so don't get anarchist and antichrist confused they are two different words!
i said: hooray for chaos
i said: hooray for chaos
Well first off IM 14. Secondly I guess you people are right. BUT what about mass media controlling the things people do. Trends and news have always tried to set a certian standard for everyone. Why can't we stop with all the labels and steriotypes and just live as one people?
| Soulfire wrote: |
| 1) Anarchy can't exist. At least not permanently. As one government disappears, another forms to take it's place. There may be temporary periods of anarchy, but no true anarchy. |
I agree, anarchy is very difficult to put into practise on a large scale. You could possibly have small communities of anarchists, but then it would be self defeating, as the government of the country they live in overrides them. It is in a humans nature to want power, to lead, and to follow.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| 2) As a Christian, you are required to follow the laws of God - most notably of those laws, the Ten Commandments. You can never be a true anarchist if you are to follow God's laws. |
I am not Christian, but I get your point. All Religions have their own set rules that are set for the followers of that religion. The followers of that religion must put their religious laws ahead of everything, or else they put their 'religious accossiation' in jeapordy.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| 3) Rules are important. They protect everyone. With rules, there is some evil and it's punished. With no rules, evil will spread like disease - nothing to cure it. We'd live in a world of rape, murder, and crime - nothing good. |
Agreed, without rules the world would collapse. Unless of course all people were pure of heart, which is obviously not the case.
Anarchy HAS worked in the past, dont let anyone tell you it isnt possible, instead of hierarchy you have everyone sharing power,wealth and enforcing law equally, a network of cities all governing themselves and trading between one another. Anything other than anarchy only benefits the few who are greedy enough to brainwash everyone else into believing their way is the only way, and nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchy does not mean no law and order, it just means decisions are made by and benefit everyone, its the purest democracy. Yes there is a minority who spoil it for the rest, but that happens under any system, do our current systems stop then? In reality it probably makes the situation worse by making the average person on the street feel they have less power over their own lives, and a lot of crime comes from this frustration.
| the_mariska wrote: |
| I used to believe when I was 13. It would be wonderful if we didn't need any states, polices, governments, etc. But we should always remember, that all people more or less are eager to do evil, so we need some rules to protect ourselves from one another. And we need some people that would control if this rules are obeyed. [Well, I guess in my country the government does exactly the opposite, but it is still better than if we had no rules ].
Note that communism was also a 'wonderful' idea, and if you would like to know how did it work in reality, my travel agency invites you to visit Poland, Lithuania, Russia or Ukraine . |
We are humans, and we need laws, otherwise it becomes Hell in here. But the nOnly laws that we should need, should be the laws of god. Anarchy means to refuse the system of applying these laws.
Gods Laws say how they should be applied and by whom. But Laws of god are nowhere applied, and when those who claim that they apply them, shout it lou, in fact hey are applying them the way they see them, which can (and almost amways is) false, that's why there should always be a certain freedom of applying these laws, but while guaranteeing that they won't be unrespected in their most basic form, all that is not essential should be let free to th eindividuals to decide.
| Bondings wrote: | ||
So do you already have this one in your collection? |
That's classic! I want one!
(You'd never get away with that in the states.
)anarchy does NOT mean without law and order, it just means everyone decides and not the few, and if we cant agree on which god we ca nott base our laws on gods rules either. So it has to come down to debate by all.
[New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhiā, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a–1 + arkhos, ruler; see –arch.]
I don't support anarchy as my country (Brunei Darussalam) has a Monarchaic (Is It Even A Word?) Government. Most people from my country are enthusiastic about the Monarch, Sultan. After I shook the hand of the Sultan 4 times, I would brag about it for a few days.
| druidbloke wrote: |
| Anarchy HAS worked in the past, dont let anyone tell you it isnt possible, instead of hierarchy you have everyone sharing power,wealth and enforcing law equally, a network of cities all governing themselves and trading between one another. |
Really? Name one country or place in the history that worked exactly as you described. There were some societies that had introduced some of the features you mentioned [eg. ancient Greece, especially Athens, the Hanza, and the first German Reich], but none of them was even similar to what you wrote. [Well, none of the communist countries was similar to what they have written about communism...
]
| druidbloke wrote: |
| In reality it probably makes the situation worse by making the average person on the street feel they have less power over their own lives, and a lot of crime comes from this frustration. |
Sure. What about menthally handicapped or just aggresive people? Would you politely explain that making decisions together would be beneficial for you both to someone aiming at you with a shotgun? A lot of crime comes from frustration, but it doesn't mean that giving the power to the crowd would stop crime at once.
There was only one society on the Earth, where pure communism worked out. It were the communities of ancient Christians [from that times, when Christianity was punished with death]. But anarchy worked out nowhere, because even those communities had some hierarchy [the peoples - diacons - priests - bishops - the Bishop of Rome].
Well it seems pre-christian barbarian society worked in the way I outlined earlier, at least some of the newer evidence is pointing that way. And if someone is aiming a gun at your head you would have a hell of a lot of people to back you up ;o) or wreak revenge afterwards, a big deterrent, maybe more so than a few years in jail I think. And what is all this rubbish about handicapped people, I find that offensive, but trouble makers would be dealt with, you have fell into the trap again of saying anarchy means no law and order, no ruler, and not no rule, big difference. and if you are going to comment please read up properly, nazism is the total opposite of anarchy, ALL members of society get a say and nobody would be singled out for persecution, its all based on compromise and agreement and so is totally incompatible with nazism and christianity. I realise how difficult it will be to implement anarchy, people are just too greedy, but I do believe eventually it will have its time, people will tire of being told what to do and want to do it for themselves. I think it will start small and spread as people realise there is another way than which they are brainwashed with every day
i believe
what is cancer in human body, anarchy is the same in society
but there is a big but
because of some stupid administrators ,some people think anarchy is a way to solve the problems.
what is cancer in human body, anarchy is the same in society
but there is a big but
because of some stupid administrators ,some people think anarchy is a way to solve the problems.
| druidbloke wrote: |
| And if someone is aiming a gun at your head you would have a hell of a lot of people to back you up ;o) or wreak revenge afterwards, a big deterrent, maybe more so than a few years in jail I think. |
Heh, is a personal revenge is a much better solution than laws protecting your life and property? I know that some laws are extremely stupid, some other are never obeyed. However, without polices and courts we would get back to prehistorical times, when everyone had to fight for survival. And this would end up as a tyrany led by those who have the greatest militar power, as pacifists would have no opportunity to resist them. The history has already gone through this...
| Quote: |
| 1.And what is all this rubbish about handicapped people, I find that offensive, but trouble makers would be dealt with, 2you have fell into the trap again of saying anarchy means no law and order, no ruler, and not no rule, big difference. 3and if you are going to comment please read up properly, nazism is the total opposite of anarchy, ALL members of society get a say and nobody would be singled out for persecution, its all based on compromise and agreement and so is totally incompatible with nazism and christianity. |
Ehh, please try to use the punctuation marks properly as your posts are horribly messy.
Ad. 1. I don't know if you have ever met a menthally handicapped person, but I had a personal contact with some of them. All of them were really miserable and unfortunate people, but some of them were because of their disorders really dangerous to the others. One woman I know, attempted to strangle her friend because the voices in her head told her so. Another one threatened her daughter that she'd kill herself if she left her even for a minute. So what would you do with that kind of person? Try to find agreement with him or start explaining your point of view?
Ad. 2. I don't like to repeat myself but I see I have no solution. What you are writing here is pure theory. Nobody knows how would anarchy work out as it [luckily] has never been carried out. Communist theories were also 'beautiful' but led to the estabilisment of one of the most horrible regimes in the world history.
Ad. 3. I can see you don't spot the difference between the First and the Third German Reich. For your information: the First German Reich was another name for the Holy Roman Empire that was a kind of union between little countries in medieval times [that's why it has some features of anarchy]. More info from Wiki here.. If you are going to comment please ensure that you know what you are writing about.
 |