Originally Posted by Dr.K
Actually try going down it as well to the scumbag terrorists, rapists, racists, murderers etc who create the need for the governement to impose laws and infringe on our privacy. Then beat the crap out of them.
It has to be said that some people don't deserve the power they hold. No names mentioned.
So you mean that we have to be kept like sheep?
Anarchy is just a term reffering to anything without sommeone in charge.
Normally, married people divorce if one of the cupples goes in charge.
How can you have this little trust in humanity? Of course anarchy is possible, but not today.
Why?Actually try going down it as well to the scumbag terrorists, rapists, racists, murderers etc who create the need for the governement to impose laws and infringe on our privacy. Then beat the crap out of them.
Let's rather forgive them, there's no need to use violence here in this society.
You also seem to hold a grudge against terrorists, while they are just mind washed by authority, those in charge. Theyr "The man," if you will.
They're not worse then you, young one.
Rapists? They are naturally bad, but do "brute" police force help to prevent rape?
I'm not stating that the police is brute, I'm saying that it wouldn't help against rape if the cops were given more power.
Racists? Yes of course they are bad, but do they "create the need for the governement to impose laws and infringe on our privacy"?
Personally I dont think so. They're not really much harm unless they use violence, and that's a different discussion.
If the cops were given enugh power to use all the violence they could think of, there would only be more violence, not less.
Murderers? better metal-dettectors could help against this one, better laws? not likelly, as there's allredy a law against murdering.
Last edited by The New Liquid Air Field!; 06-14-2005 at 10:14 PM.
Not really. I have a lot of trust in humanity, but I can assure you that anarchy would be an unwise decision. Only a free society with a reduced government with the professed goal to protect others' rights from being violated would work. Anarchy would lose the first time a person realizes that he or she can just force others to do whatever he or she says. Anarchy can quickly erupt into gang warfare.
There's an advocate in Anarco-Communism that makes shure these things dosnt happen.
Alltought punishment isnt that severe, it wold work if you're theory is what you said.
You said one would force others to do things. Basically that's also what heppens today, so the difference isn't big. People can allways say no, in expecially in Anarchy, where there's no gain if you say yes.
You might be threatened, of course. A free society requires a rather hard state first, a government that takes care of every tank and gun that could be found in society, just to remove it.
Violence is unessesary, this should be the first thing every child should learn.
This is simply not true, and the problem with society today is that too many people believe this. Sometimes violence is necessary--the bully at school isn't going to stop beating you up if you give him all your lunch money, only learn that he can beat you up for your lunch money. The bully at school will only stop when you buck up and give him a black eye.
But the bully is aslo using violence.This is simply not true, and the problem with society today is that too many people believe this. Sometimes violence is necessary--the bully at school isn't going to stop beating you up if you give him all your lunch money, only learn that he can beat you up for your lunch money. The bully at school will only stop when you buck up and give him a black eye.
If he'd also learn that violence is unecessary, we wouldnt have this problem. People cant let bully's take overhand in this issue. Freedom and peace are two things far more important then to "kick that bully's ass!"
Of course, he might not stop, you could get him banned from school.
But this philosophy mainly works at a mature age. There wont be a reasong to use violence at a mature age. If you get your ass kicked at a bar, you don't have to fight back. I didn't fight back, why should I have?
That guy fought against three of us and we didnt fight back.
If we had fouhgt back, we wuold have gone down to hes level; the violence level.
Sure, I can name other occations where violence is "necessary."
In certain revolutions, if the dictator or president is a violent person who shot annyone who oppose him, violence might be necessary, but the Gandhi way should be tryed first.
But then again, this dictator is using Violence.
What you're sugesting directly states that women should surender themselves to the raper's cock. Violence is bad, if we lot society run us down with violence, I can't really agree uppon the fact that humanity has "evolved" much since the barbars and the vikings.
Economic Left/Right: -9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54
Yeah. That's realistic.
Except when confronted with violence, or the threat of violence--in politics, in law enforcement, in military, and sometimes in everyday situations gone wrong.But this philosophy mainly works at a mature age. There wont be a reasong to use violence at a mature age.
Why should you and your buddies have fought back? Maybe so you didn't get your asses kicked? Maybe if you value some sense of pride and dignity in yourselves? Maybe so that schmuck at the bar would get the idea that he can't go around trying to beat people up, and thus nobody else would have the same problem with him?If you get your ass kicked at a bar, you don't have to fight back. I didn't fight back, why should I have?
That guy fought against three of us and we didnt fight back.
If we had fouhgt back, we wuold have gone down to hes level; the violence level.
Where in the smurf did you ever get that stupid smurfing idea from anything I said? I won't even pursue this subject.What you're sugesting directly states that women should surender themselves to the raper's cock.
There is a reason why Communism and similar philosophies fail. It's just not in our nature to follow.
You can get some people to agree, but you can't get everyone to agree. There will ALWAYS be people who believe that they can, for some reason or another, take something by force.
Do you know why they so often become totalitarian states? It's because you have to MAKE people change their minds. If you want anarchy, you'll have to spend the first few generations in a totally oppressive government forcefully changing people's minds. After that, the government isn't going to want to step down because they'll enjoy too much power, and then you have a dictatorship.
Ah, but what to define as violence... physical force is certainly violence, that much we can agree upon. But, what about the mere THREAT of force? Isn't that violence? How about the threat of something that might even be worse than physical harm? I mean, if I pulled a gun, pointed it at some guy's daughter, and started giving said man orders, I have yet to perform a violent act, yet even to threaten violence against the man I control, but I still use violence.
Even peaceful action is still the use of force to manipulate or control a situation. It may not require even the threat of physical retaliation, but power is still power. After all, during the civil right's movements, the most effective technique was, is, and will always be the boycott. Money is the lifeblood of power in our society. And power, focused into force, is violence as pure as any missile barrage or armed invasion.
Thus, there is nothing but violence to grant freedom. Imprisoning, banding against, beratting, insulting, or ostracizing those who use physical violence... that is, in and of itself, violent actions. So, no, we're no more advanced that we ever were. Just more skilled and more clever and more effective.
So, I'll stick with whatever method is most effective. If stopping a bully means breaking his nose, I'll do just that... and probably take out a few teeth or something... not on purpose, but I won't be trying all that hard to protect the well being of said bully. In the nature of politics, my violence is a simple ballot box, imput, and words... of course, I lost my last battle (against Mr. Bush), but fair is fair.
Let your heart bleed every way you like, the truth is that everyone does nothing but what they want, unless forced by some other situation. We eat because we must to survive, we love because that is our desire, we work in order to make those things possible for us... and when we want to take, we do so unless stopped. If that involves being shot by the victem, imprisoned in jail, or simply chickening out due to fear, it is violence that stops us.
Last edited by udsuna; 06-15-2005 at 09:24 AM.
As much as i dont like the majority of police officers out there(there are rarely ethical ones...and i still feel they need more requirements than JUST a High School education) i really dont think a revolution is the thing this country needs >_>
Of course it is. I could have done it with my bully but I didnt want it.Yeah. That's realistic.
I'm opposed to any form for military or militant movement.Except when confronted with violence, or the threat of violence--in politics, in law enforcement, in military, and sometimes in everyday situations gone wrong.
They all have the military for defence, so I see no point into equipping it with futhurer equipent then they have.
Never in everyday situations gone wrong. Parents should never spank theyr children becouse it wont teach them anything at all, just that doing what they did gives them paint by their parents, they'll never know how unless they're older, but then they alreddy have a personality.
If there's ceating in a cupple, violence is unessesary and wont solve anything.
Give me one good reason where violence is nessesary. In this example, try to make a senario where you, the one using violence, should use violence to solve a problem that violence hasnt been used by any counterpart.
Basically I want you to give me an example of a pasifistisk situation, or an unviolent situation, where violence is nessesary.
Is it nessesary to express an oppinoin? no.
Is it nessesary to "teach your fiancee a lession? of course not.
Children? no.
My friend got sterile that day and I lost a great deal of my hair, my other friend got almost killed due to stangeling. Yes, we did get our asses kicked.Maybe so you didn't get your asses kicked?
By using violence, you mean?Maybe so that schmuck at the bar would get the idea that he can't go around trying to beat people up, and thus nobody else would have the same problem with him?
That wouldnt change much, it would just be twice as cool for him becouse he'd feel that he took a harder target and was beaten, thus he'd need more muscle to kick our ass again. Violence dosnt solve problems, it just hands them to other people, or it just grows untill it comes back.
If you kick a bully's ass, he wont bother you, but the others will get a harder beatdown afterwards becouse he need to get hes name back again. It's better to be beat then to let other people be beat.
Oh, it's easy.Where in the smurf did you ever get that stupid smurfing idea from anything I said? I
If you say that people should use violence on people that use violence, the bullys, your'e technically saying that it's ok to be a bully aswell, but against the bully.
If a raper rapes a woman, the woman should rape the man. Simply becouse bout of these things are brute, evil, and ugly unecessary things.
We're talking about the cops here tough. I've never read anything about this philosophy so I am aware of the fact that my words, at this state, will be able to give responsoe to your doubds. But it just happens that all my intelligent friends are Anarco Communists, while all my stupid friends lean to the right. And it just happens that my political compass results putt me as an anarco-communist.There is a reason why Communism and similar philosophies fail. It's just not in our nature to follow.
In reallity, I know little about it.
Doubdfull.You can get some people to agree, but you can't get everyone to agree. There will ALWAYS be people who believe that they can, for some reason or another, take something by force.
If they feel they can take something by force, what should it be?
Power? that very instant they do, it isnt called Anarchy anymore.
Such a society requires a gradual change, I think, it requires children to be teached to live in a calm an quiet time. It requires that Nazism is gone, sexism is gone, racism is gone. It's the ultimate utopia, and we're gradually going there. Just look on the rapid decreace of homopobia latelly. Look on how women are farly more respected now then they used to be. Look how blacks are threated in the US and compare that with slavery. Look on the Jews now, and back in WW2.
We'll allways move toward that dirrection, that's what we have been doing and that's what we'll keep on doing. If there's a change in our movement toward that direction, there'll be a nice revolution, like that one of Bolivia just recently, or the famous Cuban revolution.
The first part is what Marx called the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" but it's commonly reffered to as "Socialism."Do you know why they so often become totalitarian states? It's because you have to MAKE people change their minds. If you want anarchy, you'll have to spend the first few generations in a totally oppressive government forcefully changing people's minds. After that, the government isn't going to want to step down because they'll enjoy too much power, and then you have a dictatorship.
Yes, it's needed, it's written, and it's the hardest thing there is in the whole theroy. But that's communism, anarchy is even existen today in many cases. Marrage, Friend-goups without leaders, among the bums, in certain bands, often also in move sets where the actors and the others might express all theyr creativiry.
Of course there can be possitions and such in an anarchicstic society, aslong as everyone can decide. It's basically a bit more "free" kind of Democracy, if you get me.
You're wrong on the fact that they'll love theyr power to much. However if they do, there's this other part of the philosophy called the "revolution."
Take Castro, he's not Cuba's President. He's theyr Capitan.
That's title is more communistic, actually, as he's not in complete charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Cuba
Hes title is just a nice thing that makes shure that he keeps controll. They dont have a president in Cuba, and Castro is theyr front figure, he's ultimatelly the one to decide. Things are turning really good in Cuba, tough.
They have some of the best medics aruond, they can have whatever religeon they want, economics might be on the negative side, but they manage to feed all the habitants, even the poorest. They have free health care, women and men earn just as much and are looked uppon as being equally worth. Race dosn't count at all, and just recently, right-winged people were allowed to hold a meeting therein, what means that they might have an ellectin when Casto's gone.
Yes, and you're doing something unecessary.Ah, but what to define as violence... physical force is certainly violence, that much we can agree upon. But, what about the mere THREAT of force? Isn't that violence? How about the threat of something that might even be worse than physical harm? I mean, if I pulled a gun, pointed it at some guy's daughter, and started giving said man orders, I have yet to perform a violent act, yet even to threaten violence against the man I control, but I still use violence.
We should allways forgive people as much as we can. To preform such an act, you'd need to have had a reason. A bad childhod, perhaps?
That's why people should learn right from wrong at a young age, even in school, first grade students should be forced to know this.
It wont allways be like that. And none's gonny bleed or even get hurt out of a boycott. People rate money as to important for society, rememmber that boycotters arent paid while they boycott.Even peaceful action is still the use of force to manipulate or control a situation. It may not require even the threat of physical retaliation, but power is still power. After all, during the civil right's movements, the most effective technique was, is, and will always be the boycott. Money is the lifeblood of power in our society. And power, focused into force, is violence as pure as any missile barrage or armed invasion.
What you're talking about isnt violence, it's a passiffic movement, you're not pointing any gun, nor are you "kicking ass" ether, you're just relaxing, while other people get to decie (in peace) wether or not to agree uppon the request or not. No big harm.
That isnt the most effective way, he'll just take hes anger out on other people. The most efficent thing to do woult be to boycott him or her, but that requires hes or her friends to follow, what is illogical.So, I'll stick with whatever method is most effective. If stopping a bully means breaking his nose, I'll do just that... and probably take out a few teeth or something... not on purpose, but I won't be trying all that hard to protect the well being of said bully.
If you've got friends, stick to them and keep a low profile around that guy. Workout to gain muscles, you wont be a funny taget afterwards and working out isnt that bad, especially if you're working out with a nice sport like the dance Kapoeira, or something similair.
You'll also gain some more social contacts, and perhps some more poppularity becouse you'll be one of those that can do something speciall. It wount be populair to hit you after that.
If we're getting shot by a victim, we used violence in the first place. If we're chickening out due to fear, it isnt violence, but the fact that we know that stealing ist that nice, especially that kind of violent robery, what goes around (violence) comes around.Let your heart bleed every way you like, the truth is that everyone does nothing but what they want, unless forced by some other situation. We eat because we must to survive, we love because that is our desire, we work in order to make those things possible for us... and when we want to take, we do so unless stopped. If that involves being shot by the victem, imprisoned in jail, or simply chickening out due to fear, it is violence that stops us.
Imprisoned in jail? there's no violence involved unless the cops used violence.
This country? are you talking about America?As much as i dont like the majority of police officers out there(there are rarely ethical ones...and i still feel they need more requirements than JUST a High School education) i really dont think a revolution is the thing this country needs >_>
I can't participate in that dicussion.
They dont need much more then a high school education. They need amroe secure job. To make sure of that, guns should be made illegal, for everyone but the cops for a start, then for everyone, even the cops.
A revolution would be great in the US, I think. To splitt the union and so on. The politics prefered in NY is fairly different compared to the one preffered in Texas, if they had a different president, things would be more fair.
A revolution for that prupose would do the trick.
A revolution to putt someone else in charge, politics in the US has been domined by two parties for a long time, this wont chage. The people of the states certanly would only benefit if some of the other parties were even populair, this wont happen becouse the Republicans and the Democrats have way to much commercials for the other parties, becouse the other parties arent composed by rich men in suit. They're part of the people.
Take Cobb, he's great! A revolution that satt him in charge could only bennefit the states. Gay marage and free hospital rights would be avalable, the nature would be treated bethe becouse he would give a sligly effort to fight pollution. These things were unknown by manny, hes chance of victory was just to slim becouse he's not a comercialized peice ofin suit, like the two famous alrernatives.
I've run out of time so I cant really care to spell-check.
Economic Left/Right: -9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54
No, actually I can say with some certainty that they'll like the power too much to give it up, and the people will be so brainwashed from all of the forced reeducation that they won't rise up in revolution unless something really drastic happens. And if they do, they'll be quickly put down, as one of the major ways to make people listen to you is take all the guns. Look at the feudal system. It took the Black Death to make significant changes.
The problem with Anarchy is that it's based off the ideal that NOBODY will be naturally inclined to take something by force, and that's just not the case. If there is no law, plenty of people will realize that there's no repercussions for their actions. That's how bullying starts, if the teachers don't do anything the bullys realize they're free to continue to do what they're doing. It's a major problem in Japan, where it isn't really addressed.
Uh, Mr. Air Field, you do realize you are insane, don't you? Insanity is the state where you perform the same actions repeatedly, yet expect a different result every time. ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY proves what you say wrong. Every war, every social movement, everything ever put down on paper that records or explores or studies human behavior all contradicts what you seem to believe.
Violence is the use of power to force another to comply with your will. And I've taken down a few bullies. You beat them once, and they fear *you*... you then protect others, and they'll stop entirely for fear of you stopping them by force. It has nothing to do with "right" and "wrong"... it's nothing but power. Boycotts are still the use of power to force another to do what YOU want, instead of what THEY want. That is no more or less right than beating the crap out of them. Subtler, yes, and probably more effective, but still violence.
Your name wouldn't happen to be Ender Wiggin by chance, would it?
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
I agree, but I don't know if it's because of the same principles you're arguing for.
I don't think it's in a person's nature to follow an ideaology that places the group over ourselves, which is what communism implies. A person sees himself as himself before he sees himself as, well, a brick in the wall. And that's not incorrect thinking - he is himself before the group. Communism asks that you give up your individualism and suppor the group. It's foolhardy and bordering on dangerous for the human psyche.
And, to address the other aspect, I think that communism is the cause of force, yeah. Nationalizing my property "for the good of society" is taking it by force. Nationalizing my soul, if you will, because the word "I" is an outdated, cruel idea is attempting to take my soul by force.
Posting Permissions
