Anarchy or Government?

[ReverendLostLamb]

Personally I think that with all it's major flaws Anarchy would be the way to go.

"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, peached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.  To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished.  It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed;  then at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harrassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored.  That is
government;  that is its justice;  that is its morality."

[Nightmare]

Wow that guy has (had) some issues...

Btw how does this "by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so." differ from anarchy?

[Demolishor]

to be governed is to be led by those who you have voted. The citizens have the power to change things that they don't like. That's as simple as democracy gets.

Anarchy on the other hand... Basically every1 does just what they want. So, how could you be sure that every1 get's what they need?

person 1: We need to grow crops to feed our people. let's see, first we need a field. Who owns that field over there?
person 2: Nobody, i guess. This is anarchy, you know.
person 1: Fine. Then i'll plant some carrots over there.
some time passes...
person 1: hey wtf are you doing to my carrots?
person 2: isn't obvious, I'm eating them.
person 1: You can't do that, I grew them and you didn't do a thing to help me!
person 2: screw you, this is anarchy. I can do whatever i want.
person 1: you bastard, keep your hands off my crops. *fires person 2 with a shotgun.*

[Ghost]

Agreed, Although government may be flawed at times... it gives order to chaos.

Sometimes you cannot get everything you want... that is life, may not be fair - but its life. With anarchy, everyone does what they want... so people steal, kill etc without any concern over the consequences or effects.

This may happen now, but there is a justice system in place - so that people who do murder spend their lives in prison, far away from society where they could kill or steal etc again.

Anarchy has no justice system, and it would eventually lead to the separation and destruction of civilizations... which is why governments are set up.

The people instruct the government on what they want, otherwise they vote for a new government. So government manages the wishes of many.... and makes them more realistic.

In my opinion, it brings order to chaos. So i vote government.

[zezuan]

In my opinion, it brings order to chaos. So i vote government.

I like chaos. So i vote Anarchy.

[Sparrisen]

Anarchy, no one decides. This is highly unstable, since even in personal relationships, someone pulls the strings more than others. Anarchy is bound to dissolve into some kind of order. How many seconds will it be before someone finds out that ganging up two guys will let you take the one guy's carrots? A husband might tell his wife what to do, his wife will tell her child what to do. And most important of all:


Does anyone of you REALLY want to take sole resposability for your life and your actions? I mean really. Think this through.

What made you rise up from your bed just today? School? Work? A friend called? You needed to see to your child? MOST LIKELY, it wasn't even something you decided for yourself. And most descisions we make, truly ourselves, aren't that smart anyhow. It's not many people who ever FEELS like exercise for example. Often, when they think they feel like it, it's rather that they feel GUILT for NOT doing it, or that their friends will wonder where they are, or something like that.

Most desicions we make, that are actually GOOD, comes from us wanting OTHER people think we're good. Wanting a pat on the head. So, you want to be a doctor. You want a nice body. You want good clothes. You want to eat healthy.

How much of this is because we want to feel SUPERIOR? To be something more than others? What if we didn't care about others, or their authority, what would you do today?

A LOT of the good choices you've made in your life, wasn't even yours. And some of the bad too. Do you think you will make more better desicions without society? Can you truly, take full responsability for your life? Will you study, that which you know is good for you, if there's no pressure, no immediate need? Or will you just go watch telly, and push it to the next day.
----------------------------

Additionally, right now, you're using a computer, looking at a screen that comes from a store. It was freighted alongside with the computer, from another country, where the various parts was assembled by other people. The screen itself, is made from several components, glass, metal, plastic, each one of these could well be made in different places on the globe, the plastic being processed from oil from nowray, where hundreds of people man oilrigs, themselves constructed by metal, concrete made by still thousands of other people... I could go on forever. Think anything of these could work without organisation?
Say what you will about society, but in several cases, it takes our selfish momentary needs and makes use of it in a way that takes us one step further, instead of one step backwards. I'm not saying it's perfect, but if you want true anarchy, you most likely have to live alone in the woods, because as soon as you meet someone, a hiarchy is established, it's in our nature. A single human is rather usless. We'll fall prey to a single wolf, a single bear, a single winter. Or strenght lies in our ability to cooperate and plan ahead.

--------------

No, how about dictatorship? Provided a decent dictator this would be efficient wouldn't you think?

[zezuan]

Does anyone of you REALLY want to take sole resposability for your life and your actions? I mean really. Think this through.

i want to...

[Hullu]

Agreed with zezuan. I want to.

[ReverendLostLamb]

Btw how does this "by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so." differ from anarchy?

Maybe he thought anarchists had the right and the wisdom to do so?

to be governed is to be led by those who you have voted. The citizens have the power to change things that they don't like. That's as simple as democracy gets.

But it's more complicated than that.

This may happen now, but there is a justice system in place - so that people who do murder spend their lives in prison, far away from society where they could kill or steal etc again.
The people instruct the government on what they want, otherwise they vote for a new government. So government manages the wishes of many.... and makes them sound more  realistic.

Do you have any idea of what the costs to execute or imprison someone are?
In the the US most states have abandoned the chair and gone to more expensive exectution methods. Furthermore, you need to pay for the trial and stuff. If the guy just goes to jail you have to keep him alive and many jails (especially in Europe) are pretty luxurious.

@Sparr: ...I agree?

[Ghost]

It may cost a bit of money to keep criminals in prison, but it is better than murderers, rapists, thieves etc on the streets.

IF they put a thief away for life, how many things are they preventing the theft of? ... That would equal the price of keeping him in prison. And IF they keep a murderer in prison, does that not equal the price of a life they may save?

[ReverendLostLamb]

People still would have their common sense. It costs one or two bullets to kill a thief. No need for trials either.


EDIT: Human as species lack common sense. We do what is worst for ourselves by nature. That is because we would not look at it as a whole trying to survive. It would be YOU trying to survive, perhaps with a family or a loved one. Therefore, it's easier to not get too attached to anyone.


But then again:

He who dies without love shall never see the Kingdom of Heaven.

[Ghost]

In my opinion, that is wrong.

The human species developed from grouping and co-operation. Back in the times of cave men and stuff like that, humans still hunted in packs ... still stayed in groups.... still slept close to family members etc. Those of whom who did not do this, died out....

Co-operation and team work is one of the major aspects on what allowed humans to survive and develop into what we are now. It is human nature to seek out companionship.

That is why there is no mental side effects when you are in contact with other people... but if you don't see or speak to another human being in a long time, you do develop some mental illness (i cant remember the name).

[ReverendLostLamb]

It is true that the human is not meant be alone but I think it'd be easier to survive if you don't worry for anyone too much.


[quote from Jean Jacques Rousseau] All of my misfortunes come from having thought too well of my fellows.[/quote]

[Ghost]

So what about the people who make food, clothes, computers, houses, anything you use in your normal life that you didnt make yourself - or grow yourself etc.

If nobody cared about anyone else, and nobody bothered looking out for one another - people would just keep their food, or clothes etc for themselves.

So many people would starve etc, until eventually everyone but those who know how to make everything they need in life by themselves and only for themselves will die out.

[ReverendLostLamb]

Then we'd have one problem less. About 50% of the worlds population live in cities. If all of them and some more will die, say 60%, the world wouldn't be overpopulated, and there would also be less carbon dioxide emissions.