That's true, some of the most stupid people I've ever met excel at trivia games, or word puzzles, or can recite years worth of pointless statistics for some silly game. Perhaps making the choice to allot so much of one's mental system resources to such pointless pursuits is actually a sign of lack of intelligence.
But it's probably not cool to say so around here.:)
That is illogical. Without hierarchy there can be no leaders. Without leaders there can be no enforcement or even definition of rules. This is very simple if you just think about it. As soon as someone emerges as a leader, they need administrators, advisors, etc. Hierarchy is an inevitable by-product of any organization, organization is necessary for a functioning society. Really basic stuff here.
A bit emotional for someone who claims to be rational, aintcha?
Maybe you should recognize the inherent supreme autonomy of other individuals and stop trying to shove your poorly researched ideas down our throats.:)
You are creating a logical fallacy by saying that if there is no hierarchical authority then the society is indefensible.
The real logical fallacy here is the one you keep pushing; i.e. that somehow a land with no leaders will have law that works and sufficient organization to resist invaders. Anyone with enough life experience to have a clue about human nature will see the flaw in that idea.
So then what you are really saying is "I insist on putting words in your mouth so I can say what I want to say whether or not it has anything to do with what you said." Okilly dokilly then... Carry on.
Your caveat that it has to be "still working" is a red herring. It was working. It did work. It was crushed by the communist/fascist who
had most of the leaders executed.
I guess if there were leaders for Franco to execute then it wasn't anarchy, was it?:)
Some people like to claim there was some magical time in Spain when everything was just hunky dory with no government, no laws,
etc. Then they were conquered by Franco. The obvious question then is what went wrong? And the obvious answer is that with no
government and no central authority any psycho who can recruit a few troops can conquer such a society. Doesn't sound very secure
or practical to me... So I stand by my original statement.
Therefore, what you are really saying by "anarchy is impossible" is that a society based on the principle of voluntary association,
rather than coercion like the state, is impossible.
No, what I said was human nature requires leaders and hierarchy, and
that this is obvious due to the fact that there has never been a successful anarchist society. I didn't write in leagalese or C++ or anything,
so no need to translate to English-- I simply meant what I said.
Native American tribes had tribal governments, most complete with chief executive and a congress of elders. Whether the hierarchy and laws were written down or passed on orally is irrelevant to this discussion, obviously.
To any reasonable person it is quite apparent that anarchy is unworkable, period. There are no examples of successful anarchist organizations, anarchist states, anarchist nations, anarchist organizations, etc because all those terms are oxymorons. This isn't that hard a concept, except for people who are irrationally attached to the idea of "anarchy".
You just haven't looked deeply enough into this to understand it I guess.
Tell you what, why don't you and your anarchist buddies get together first and have a meeting so you can all define what you really mean by "anarchy", then come back and tell us so we can let you know the name of the system you have chosen to re-christen "anarchy".
Okay, okay, I get it now. Should've known by your username this was just a set up for you to act out... In any event I wish you no ill, I hope you grow up, get a clue, and live long and prosper. Buh-bye!
Sorry, but you remind me of every other "anarchist" I've met. Overly emotional and not terribly bright. Apparently you do not know what "straw man" means either, as the scenario I mentioned is in fact a very likely one -- assuming one is so foolhardy as to believe their "supreme sovereignty as an individual" somehow trumps the government's authority.
There's a moral in this for you, and it's a simple one -- think things through before you post. Know what you're talking about, because others do and if you don't you'll end up looking like, well, a reactionary fool who doesn't know what he's talking about.:)
Oh and actually, I was kind of hoping you would teach me something.
You're confusing the UK government's label for anti-monarchists with a valid definition. It was the Sex Pistols got all these fools thinking they were anarchists, but the Pistols were just a sensationalist and cynical get-rich-quick scheme too many people took seriously.The rock and roll equivalent of Jerry Springer.
The real definition is the first one you stated, but then you stop making sense. For instance if there is no hierarchy, how can laws be enforced?
It seems fairly apparent that human nature needs hierarchy or it wouldn't exist in every single society of humans on the planet. It's extremely difficult for just two people to have a "no ruler" relationship (though lack of self-awareness makes plenty of people think otherwise for a little while:), so how can you possibly believe a whole country can achieve it?
Note that that isn't any sort of realistic scenario, but you didn't really use one either, so I'm not going to bother.
Well if that's the best you can do then perhaps you haven't really thought this whole "anarchy" thing through. Anyway you have proven my point, which is that there are no anarchists -- just some ill-informed people who like that word without really knowing what it means. Way to make your point!
If you have a better word than Anarchism for what this is, I'd be glad to hear it.
Fantasy is the word which comes to mind...:)
In real life it doesn't work to say to the officer who pulls you over for speeding, "Gee thanks, but I don't subscribe to your government". Realistically speaking, anarchy can exist only as an extremely fleeting state which is always followed by some form of government. Human nature dictates this, and the proof is the complete and utter lack of successful anarchist societies.
Before you fire back with that example, note I said "successful". As in "still working". I know there are legends, and of course there have been fleeting periods, but no real working examples of what you describe. Hence, the word for what you are calling anarchism is "fantasy". It never existed and it never will.
Anarchists just don't seem to exist anymore. I've been invited to "anarchist" events by "anarchists", and I always point out that organizing is the antithesis of anarchy, but they never seem to be sufficiently educated to grasp that point. When I was a kid the idea of anarchy was pretty universally understood -- no law, no rules, no-one in charge.
I think kids today just like the fact that it sounds sensational, "I'm an anarchist, HIDE YOUR CHILDREN!!!".
Poor kids today got nothin'. They're still learning the punk and rap songs we wrote back in the '70s...
:) I was being semi-facetious, but I expect it'd be a better solution than we'll end up with. Most likely the future will bring us employer-provided work transportation, employer-provided housing, and other lovely feudal-state appropriate solutions.
Makes me rather glad I've got just a few years left to live, frankly...
The "right to drive a car to work" is not exactly a basic human right.
Maybe it ought to be. For many people in the US no car = no living.
I have lived in a handful of major US cities, and from what I've experienced it is not possible to have a reasonable quality of life without a car unless you live in NYC or San Francisco. Other than those two cities public transit in the US is virtually nonexistent, so price those motorists off the roads and you are looking at one gigantic economic crisis.
Maybe building useable public transit before we price Joe Average off the roads would be wise? You know, cart before horse and all...
Now you're making a good argument against ethanol. I mostly agree on those points, but ethanol is not a bad "band-aid", IMO. The problem I have is with it being touted as a panacea. It can do us a lot of good economically to become more independent in the short term, but I feel we must develop other, greener propulsion technologies. It's important that gigantic swaths of the population won't suddenly be priced out of the motorist pool, and I think ethanol can help us create a smooth transition. There may be holes in this idea, but I think they are relatively minor when accounting for the inevitable redistribution of wealth that accompanies such changes in technology.
Slashdot Mirror
What can one expect from a bunch of elitist rich pricks who made a fortune off pretending to be humble, working class folks "just like their fans"?
Must be your sig.
That's true, some of the most stupid people I've ever met excel at trivia games, or word puzzles, or can recite years worth of pointless statistics for some silly game. Perhaps making the choice to allot so much of one's mental system resources to such pointless pursuits is actually a sign of lack of intelligence. But it's probably not cool to say so around here. :)
That is illogical. Without hierarchy there can be no leaders. Without leaders there can be no enforcement or even definition of rules. This is very simple if you just think about it. As soon as someone emerges as a leader, they need administrators, advisors, etc. Hierarchy is an inevitable by-product of any organization, organization is necessary for a functioning society. Really basic stuff here.
A bit emotional for someone who claims to be rational, aintcha? Maybe you should recognize the inherent supreme autonomy of other individuals and stop trying to shove your poorly researched ideas down our throats. :)
Indeed.
The real logical fallacy here is the one you keep pushing; i.e. that somehow a land with no leaders will have law that works and sufficient organization to resist invaders. Anyone with enough life experience to have a clue about human nature will see the flaw in that idea.
So then what you are really saying is "I insist on putting words in your mouth so I can say what I want to say whether or not it has anything to do with what you said." Okilly dokilly then... Carry on.
Some people like to claim there was some magical time in Spain when everything was just hunky dory with no government, no laws, etc. Then they were conquered by Franco. The obvious question then is what went wrong? And the obvious answer is that with no government and no central authority any psycho who can recruit a few troops can conquer such a society. Doesn't sound very secure or practical to me... So I stand by my original statement.
No, what I said was human nature requires leaders and hierarchy, and that this is obvious due to the fact that there has never been a successful anarchist society. I didn't write in leagalese or C++ or anything, so no need to translate to English-- I simply meant what I said.
Native American tribes had tribal governments, most complete with chief executive and a congress of elders. Whether the hierarchy and laws were written down or passed on orally is irrelevant to this discussion, obviously.
To any reasonable person it is quite apparent that anarchy is unworkable, period. There are no examples of successful anarchist organizations, anarchist states, anarchist nations, anarchist organizations, etc because all those terms are oxymorons. This isn't that hard a concept, except for people who are irrationally attached to the idea of "anarchy". You just haven't looked deeply enough into this to understand it I guess.
Tell you what, why don't you and your anarchist buddies get together first and have a meeting so you can all define what you really mean by "anarchy", then come back and tell us so we can let you know the name of the system you have chosen to re-christen "anarchy".
Nope. There sure are a lot of you who do fit that descrption though...
It didn't work, so no. *sigh*
Okay, okay, I get it now. Should've known by your username this was just a set up for you to act out... In any event I wish you no ill, I hope you grow up, get a clue, and live long and prosper. Buh-bye!
Sorry, but you remind me of every other "anarchist" I've met. Overly emotional and not terribly bright. Apparently you do not know what "straw man" means either, as the scenario I mentioned is in fact a very likely one -- assuming one is so foolhardy as to believe their "supreme sovereignty as an individual" somehow trumps the government's authority.
:)
There's a moral in this for you, and it's a simple one -- think things through before you post. Know what you're talking about, because others do and if you don't you'll end up looking like, well, a reactionary fool who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Oh and actually, I was kind of hoping you would teach me something.
You're confusing the UK government's label for anti-monarchists with a valid definition. It was the Sex Pistols got all these fools thinking they were anarchists, but the Pistols were just a sensationalist and cynical get-rich-quick scheme too many people took seriously.The rock and roll equivalent of Jerry Springer.
The real definition is the first one you stated, but then you stop making sense. For instance if there is no hierarchy, how can laws be enforced?
It seems fairly apparent that human nature needs hierarchy or it wouldn't exist in every single society of humans on the planet. It's extremely difficult for just two people to have a "no ruler" relationship (though lack of self-awareness makes plenty of people think otherwise for a little while:), so how can you possibly believe a whole country can achieve it?
Well if that's the best you can do then perhaps you haven't really thought this whole "anarchy" thing through. Anyway you have proven my point, which is that there are no anarchists -- just some ill-informed people who like that word without really knowing what it means. Way to make your point!
Fantasy is the word which comes to mind...
In real life it doesn't work to say to the officer who pulls you over for speeding, "Gee thanks, but I don't subscribe to your government". Realistically speaking, anarchy can exist only as an extremely fleeting state which is always followed by some form of government. Human nature dictates this, and the proof is the complete and utter lack of successful anarchist societies.
Before you fire back with that example, note I said "successful". As in "still working". I know there are legends, and of course there have been fleeting periods, but no real working examples of what you describe. Hence, the word for what you are calling anarchism is "fantasy". It never existed and it never will.
Anarchists just don't seem to exist anymore. I've been invited to "anarchist" events by "anarchists", and I always point out that organizing is the antithesis of anarchy, but they never seem to be sufficiently educated to grasp that point. When I was a kid the idea of anarchy was pretty universally understood -- no law, no rules, no-one in charge. I think kids today just like the fact that it sounds sensational, "I'm an anarchist, HIDE YOUR CHILDREN!!!".
Poor kids today got nothin'. They're still learning the punk and rap songs we wrote back in the '70s...
Some poor people have no feet, you insensitive clod!
Makes me rather glad I've got just a few years left to live, frankly...
Maybe it ought to be. For many people in the US no car = no living.
I have lived in a handful of major US cities, and from what I've experienced it is not possible to have a reasonable quality of life without a car unless you live in NYC or San Francisco. Other than those two cities public transit in the US is virtually nonexistent, so price those motorists off the roads and you are looking at one gigantic economic crisis.
Maybe building useable public transit before we price Joe Average off the roads would be wise? You know, cart before horse and all...
Now you're making a good argument against ethanol. I mostly agree on those points, but ethanol is not a bad "band-aid", IMO. The problem I have is with it being touted as a panacea. It can do us a lot of good economically to become more independent in the short term, but I feel we must develop other, greener propulsion technologies. It's important that gigantic swaths of the population won't suddenly be priced out of the motorist pool, and I think ethanol can help us create a smooth transition. There may be holes in this idea, but I think they are relatively minor when accounting for the inevitable redistribution of wealth that accompanies such changes in technology.