Jump to content

The Liberty Debate


XirmiX

Recommended Posts

Soo... I've been kind of flooding the Status updates with anarchy principles, disproving its assumption of "chaos and mayhem" and explaining why it's the only way we could ever achieve true freedom. So, I'm making a topic, a bit like weirdobob did when I suggesting him to because of Status update flooding, but this one is probably going to be slightly more serious and debatable than his thread made out of yarn and something...

 

One thing I'll start off with is a quote from ImDaMasterL on my status update:

"I keep stuff balanced in my own life, they keep the country and the economy balanced, simple like that."

 

My response: You do realize that the millions of individual lives MAKE UP the economy, right? So I don't think you're understanding this correctly. If economy was completely alien to your own life and was something that you shouldn't care about, it wouldn't bother you. But it does, because your life is what participates in making it. Saying that it isn't would just mean that the politicians are not who people give power to at all!

 

I would say that I can make historical, scientific and logical reasons as to why the idea of a "government" or simply "authority" is illegitimate and much more destructive than individual immorality.

 

EDIT: here's one of the videos that in a way show how the system which our life is in works. There's historical examples shown as well:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True anarchy = chaos because there will always be killers, psychopaths, sociopaths etc unless you manage to create a society where none live (which is pretty much impossible right now).

Anarchy can never happen, not anymore, pretty much for the same reason communism never works out- the human nature. We're greedy. Sure it might be freedom, but that doesn't mean it's neccessarily good. If anyone can do whatever they want without the law punishing them, people would start killing each other for stupid reasons. It's bad enough as it is, with killers, robbers, or whatever. The reason there's not many is because you get punished for doing those things.Besides, there's always gonna be someone who tries to be the leader. ALWAYS. That's just how people are. 

 

Imagine someone kills your close relative because anarchy is a thing, what do you do? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with ImDaMasterL. Balance is something everyone should try to achieve, even if it's not necessarily spiritual. Keeping yourself in check for the sake of everyone else is a noble thing, I don't see why you would assume that he lacked the understanding of the economic condition.

 

Just because something is capable of immoral imbalance doesn't mean that you should take it down in its entirely. The opposite of two extremes; full freedom and full restriction is not the answer to the modern system.

I would say that I can make historical, scientific and logical reasons as to why the idea of a "government" or simply "authority" is illegitimate and much more destructive than individual immorality.

No **** sherlock. 80,000 people who are commanded to destroy is more destructive than a man who has the intent to destroy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-.- you really think that most people in general are immoral monsters and psychopaths and we need a ruling class of the same kind of people to deal with it. You know how stupid that sounds? If majority of the people in the world were psychopaths, then hierarchies and monarchies we've had and have today wouldn't be possible to begin with. Much mpre chaos came from hierarchies and monarchies. Have you got ANY proof from history showing that anarchy is chaos and mayhem? Any? No? Well I have proof that it doesn't. Most of us are moral not because of some dipshits on a big house in suits scribbling stuff on paper with "magical" ink, but because we know what is right and wrong and most of the time we strive to do what is morally RIGHT and that is NOT because of the ruling class.

You make assumptions and think I'm gonna change my mind because of them? Give me historical, logical and scientific reasons for your points because so far you've backed them up with nothing more than ******* nothing.

Also, when I'm talking about this subject and might be rude to you in some offensive manner, it is not that I'm stupid and am trying to make you feel offended, no, I MEAN it! If you're alright doing what the thugs and thieves in the club tell you to do and alright with being punished by their enforcers if you don't, then that does indeed make you a lazy ass; you give away your freedoms to let them do things for you, which are in fact supposed to be your own responsibilities.

Even if the rate of individuals doing immoral things increases with anarchy in place, it will still be INSIGNIFICANT with the amount of damage done by those who you call "authority" and issue orders to others for killing thousands, even millions of people. Why it would be insignifficant? Would YOU go around wasting your life on killing others until eventually you get killed yourself? You think that because there's a ruling class makes you want to do moral things, even though they themselves are the most immoral people in existance? What kind of logic are you basing your opinion on?! When in status update I owned Pyromailmann in discussion about this, he simply refused to argue or try to look on the other side of things. The only reason you are not willing to even research how anarchy would ACTUALLY be like is because all your life you've been regurgitating what you've been told; to obey.

If Germany had won the second world war, I would be long dead for even speaking of my opinion. If "authority" causes much more and has caused most of the immoral and evil things throughout history, why do you think that it could ever work? Anarchy would NOT cause more deaths than with "authority" in place, it would REDUCE it. The things you see as facts are merely assumtions which you've believed for years and have never thought otherwise, because that had been the only option which those who are teaching you have been giving.

When I said that you are giving away your responsibilities to those you would refer to "masters", I don't know what you interpreted as your responsibilities to be, but what I meant was:

YOU have the responsibility to protect yourself

YOU have the responsibility to protect those around you

YOU have the responsibility to sustain yourself

Not the "Law Enforcers", not the "Authority"; YOU. And if you are willing to give away any one of those, then that does in fact make you a lazy ass. Yes there are people that can help you, but they won't be doing things for you. It's all your entire responsibility as an individual. And when I realized that, I wanted to take that responaibility as much as possible, because within societies we live today, "authority" does things for us, in turn for our freedoms. No thank you, I want to keep my freedoms to myself entirely and have all my responsibilities. I'm starting to think that I care for your freedoms more than you do. And if you do not want to take all the responsibilities for yourself, that simply does make you lazy. When I was back in Latvia, most people took their actions under their own responsibility much more than in England and that is because in Latvia, the government simply doesn't want to get involved in our personal lives as much as in England. Even if I go back to Latvia and have much more freedom, I will still, NEVER in my life again believe in authority.

When I started to THINK for myself, I changed from a Christian and a Statist to Agnostic and Anarchist. I'd suggest you research stuff for yourself, because, as I've said before that me just saying things here might as well be quite pointless. But if you do not care at all and want to stay the obedient sheep you are now, okay, so be it. I'm here to simply inform you not to tell you what to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anarchy never worked. I like the government. I also like the army, so if someone tries to take us we can defend. Anarchy would just fall apart.

 

an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē/
noun
 
  1. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
    "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
    synonyms: lawlessness, nihilismmobocracyrevolutioninsurrectiondisorder,chaosmayhemtumultturmoil
    "conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy"
       
    • absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
       
       
      Yeah. I like government.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'all forgetting 'bout welfare. And fire squadrons. And all the other government shizafriz.

Also, while we're breaking internet rule #7 and sharing political views, I might as well say I'm all for a corporate government like the ones they have in Invisible Inc. It would be funny to see an entire country run by Kleenex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh*

 

As stated by the good old Thomas Hobbes, the "state of nature", which you identify as anarchy, has never existed.

It's hypothetical. It just can't and never will work. That's because humans are born with two base instincts: natural greed, and natural intellect. It's not their fault though, because that's just what nature imposes: animals are selfish because in nature only the stronger win.

But intellect stops humans from fighting against each other. And how? By "spontaneously giving their rights to the State in exchange of safety and peace.

 

Now, I know this doesn't always work. But it should. We are not animals, we don't live in caves. We are humans. We have to live together. We can't do that if there are no rules we have to follow. Mass histery, insanity, people doing whatever they want.

 
 
So, to answer this:

Have you got ANY proof from history showing that anarchy is chaos and mayhem?

No. We don't.

Because it CAN'T exist!

Just think about it yourself! Anarchy only exists after a government has fallen. And then what happens?

Another government gets the control!

 

Now, would you please think about this for a second?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize that governments are run by people, right? If what you say about every single person having a straight moral compass and trying to do right when they can is true, then there would be no problems with government, as the people in charge would try to do right. Getting a position of power does not suddenly make you an evil person, but evil people can get in a position of power, which is why monarchies never work and why America has lasted for two hundred years. The way the American government is supposed to work does not put one or a select hand full of people in charge, instead people who are educated on the law are voted by the people as representatives for the people. At least, that's the simplified vertion of what I know.

The reason why Anarchy would never work is because it's against human nature. If the government were to dissappear, people would band together to defend or hunt down and punish the murders, thieves, rapists, etc. Eventually the issue of whether the people who were actually committing crimes were the ones being punished would come up, and respected individuals would be chossen to view the cases and decide to the best of their ability the guilty party. That would soon evolve into deciding what punishments would be acceptable for certain crimes and what offenses would be considered punishable. That is basically a government, even if it's not a big one. The point of a government is not to remove freedom, but to preserve it by upholding laws that prevent infringements on others rights as human beings. It is only when the government is corrupted that it becomes a bad thing.

I also want to bring up that some one pointed out that there are evil people out there, or else things like murder would not exist, and you accused them of saying everyone is a psychopath. What the heck man?

And I've just wasted my time typing this all out because no one's opinions have ever changed from an internet debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting a position of power does not suddenly make you an evil person, but evil people can get in a position of power, which is why monarchies never work and why America has lasted for two hundred years.

You're forgetting about England, the country that founded and for a while governed America.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how people finally realized to "think for themselves" after watching a video that literally tells you them to do exactly that. Delicious irony.

Eh, I don't think anyone sees the good in absolute chaos. I do agree that balance is key. (Wise words from Death The Kid)

What do you mean, "absolute chaos?" All I see is pure, unadulterated freedom, and I think that's better than anything we have now. Today, everyone is obedient. Everyone is sacrificing a part of themselves for this society, and that's complete bu*lshit, where the hell's my True Freedom™?? Look at all the harm authority is capable of, this is a broken system I tell you! I've done so much thinking for myself I've finally realized that anarchism is the best system of government, as in no government at all!!

Sorry, I had to take a piece of the pie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how people finally realized to "think for themselves" after watching a video that literally tells you them to do exactly that. Delicious irony.

What do you mean, "absolute chaos?" All I see is pure, unadulterated freedom, and I think that's better than anything we have now. Today, everyone is obedient. Everyone is sacrificing a part of themselves for this society, and that's complete bu*lshit, where the hell's my True Freedom™?? Look at all the harm authority is capable of, this is a broken system I tell you! I've done so much thinking for myself I've finally realized that anarchism is the best system of government, as in no government at all!!

Sorry, I had to take a piece of the pie.

If you looked at the definition I put up. It says "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority."

Or "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal." Which sounds fun, but some people will take it to far. Murder, ****, destruction, some people will do it no matter how it works.  

 

I do agree that the government is being a butt right now, and we do have freedoms, and some we must fight for.

 

Government is only natural for human beings. It needs to be fixed, but without government and organization, we would not have many things that we have today. Healthcare, police, cars, food for those who cannot provide on there own. I rather have a government, than no government.

 

 

Instead, of not wanting it, why not fight to change it.

 

 

 

 

The forums for example.

 

 

There are good people, and than their are trolls.

 

If a troll, trolls you, and will not stop. Normally you would report him. But without admins, or staff, and no ban,What would you do? Of course you would try to ignore him, or out-wit him. Although, sometimes that never works.

 

Sometimes the admins can be mean, but also fair. Maybe fight to become an admin? To change the rules to make it fair, or more fair.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god, I was expecting an actual discussion about the balance between restrictions and freedoms, but now it's now about shi*ting on Anarchists. Great job sperging, everyone.

it was never a discussion

this is all about op tricking himself into believing anarchy could work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it was never a discussion

this is all about op tricking himself into believing anarchy could work

No, how many times do I have to emphasize the fact that he's thinking for himself!! YOU ARE AN OBEDIENT SHEEP!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god, I was expecting an actual discussion about the balance between restrictions and freedoms, but now it's now about shi*ting on Anarchists. Great job sperging, everyone.

Dancing_skull.gif

No, how many times do I have to emphasize the fact that he's thinking for himself!! YOU ARE AN OBEDIENT SHEEP!!

 

Your sarcasm is quite ironic.

 

You're also forgetting the America revolted against England for restricting it's freedoms.

 

Wasn't it because of a shipping tax or whatever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't it because of a shipping tax or whatever?

I believe it was because the American colonies were being taxed like they were part of the country, but weren't given the rights one would have as a citizen and weren't represented in parliament. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your sarcasm is quite ironic.

 

 

Wasn't it because of a shipping tax or whatever?

It was because England kept putting taxes on the americans, than made a tea tax. Then they were like "AW HELL NAW."

 

 

 

The sad part was, England could have won, but than they knew they were spending too much money on the war, so they were like "Eh. Were done."

 

 

It was never "MERICA SO MIGHTY AND BRAVE!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snob, I'm slightly confused as to how exactly you see things as. From one end you see anarchy as "chaos and mayhem", then in the next post you... what exactly are you pointing out here?

 

To those who say that the idea of rulers is a natural thing: The fact that there are certain types of animals which live together where leadership is a thing, such as in the packs of wolfs, does indeed confirm that leadership came through natural reasons. However, if I'm not mistaken most types of animals or any type of living things are not centralized. Humans can be either centralized, which means hierarchy or monarchy, or they can be not, which would mean anarchy.

 

what I'll relate to here is the issue of greed, as you mentioned. If you look at two general types of hierarchies; Communism and Capitalism, you would argue that Communism "doesn't work", because you are not allowed to own anything in particular yourself (such as business, land etc.) and that you cannot choose leader for yourself and where as Capitalism "works", because you are allowed to own certain things (examples mentioned previously) and that you can choose leader for yourself. While this is true, there is one big thing they have in common, which usually is referred to by being only a Communist thing; "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others". How does this refer to Capitalism? Those in charge, no matter who you choose, if you even get in charge who you want to be in charge will always be allowed to do things you are not and there is nothing that you can do which they by far cannot, as this is what makes them a "leader". Through hierarchy none will ever be equally free BECAUSE of the nature of what a government is, does and what it can do.

 

The definition you see on google of anarchy, is not exactly what it's about. Through the definition you find, it seems as if you're interpreting that all the people who are anarchists are maniacs, which is completely untrue. Those who truly are anarchists are people who see the destruction done by governments through greed of power. I'd rather have someone trying to steal stuff individually because of the greed they have for possessions of another individual than a thug that claims themselves to be "authority" who suppresses people because of the greed for power that he or she has.

 

Remember, that just because something is natural does not necessarily mean it's good. We are part of nature, meaning us making new things is natural to us, however not all that we make is good; a lot of it is destroying the very nature we grew up in at the beginning.

 

Thinking that the people in government have the rights we don't is completely stupid because, as you said, they are still human beings like us. They are not superior what so ever. They don't actually have any more moral rights than we do. The reason they can do what they do is because we THINK that they should be let pass by to do things we wouldn't see an individual thieve or even mafia do as ok. If you take out the idea that government should be let do what they do, you would see it nothing more than a gigantic gang and an oppression tool. It is the belief in it, which makes it stand where it stands; it's a religion, which most people today abide by.

 

If you're a minarchist, you're probably thinking that there can be a "good government" and/or a "small government", which would still be an "authority" organisation, but with less oppression. The fact is that a "government" can NEVER stay small. Even if it starts off as it, it will always become big. The reason why people would ever want to rebuild one is if they BELIEVE that such a thing must exist. If the majority throw that destructive idea out the window, it would never come back, and if it tried to, people would fight back. The reason why it can't be any good, as I said before, is because of the very nature of what it is; the idea that some people are "allowed" to do certain things, which the rest of the civilization can't. In other words: "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others".

 

Ehh... Read your posts and... guys... The discussion works if you give reasons why you think "authority" works and I give reasons why anarchy works or somewhat that and then make reasons why each others' points are incorrect and then the debate would work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

×
  • Create New...