The Liberty Debate

[Snob]

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?

[Auth]

*sighs a very long and sad sigh*

 

Xirmix.

 

A game forum is not a place to be talking about how chaos would be better than order.

 

Besides, the universe does not revolve around you, so stop trying to make it.

[XirmiX]

*sighs a very long and sad sigh*

 

Xirmix.

 

A game forum is not a place to be talking about how chaos would be better than order.

 

Besides, the universe does not revolve around you, so stop trying to make it.

-.- I'm not. So, because it's off-topic you think it's all about jokes, right? Welp, I can't even...

 

And for some reason I feel crushed from this and I don't get why. I know my arguments made sense and they outranked what people said before.

 

Snob, I was trying to make an actual discussion here, so if you're not here to make any points, what's the point being here?

 

I've seen points to why people would want "authority", but looking at reasons why people wouldn't want it... the points to why you'd want "authority" are very vague and just way too much with assumption.

 

I realized I hadn't given an example of how anarchy has worked before in history. If you search for this, that will give you a real, legit historical example of anarchy working in place: The Spanish Anarchist Revolution 1936

[Snob]

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.

Oh my god. Please. Stop. I'm gonna stop joking around and get to the point.

 

Anarchists are not maniacs. They are literally deluded idealists who don't understand the implications of human nature and the cost of freedom. Freedom, like literally any social construct sacrifices a part of society in order to function. I don't have the freedom to stop your freedom. That's why restrictions exist. That's why balance is rewarded in nature, it's not always good, but in the long run it works and that's why it continues to stand.

The wet dream of an Anarchist, "true" freedom, will never exist. True freedom is a paradox. Proper freedom opens up possibilities yielding benefits for you and me, but "true" freedom opens up the possibility of killing itself. If you can do whatever you want in an Anarchy (with enough people backing you up), what's stopping you from generating authority?

 

If you still don't get it, think of it like this; True freedom is absolute zero (temperature). 

"Every atom is influenced by those around it, which allows the transfers of energy, which ruins your plans to achieve absolute zero."

 

EDIT: This is pointless, isn't it? I can't expect the anarchists of all people to understand balance..

[Halved]

I can't.

I just can't.

Im out of here.

[XxTheGentleManScientistxX]

Oh my god. Please. Stop. I'm gonna stop joking around and get to the point.

 

Anarchists are not maniacs. They are literally deluded idealists who don't understand the implications of human nature and the cost of freedom. Freedom, like literally any social construct sacrifices a part of society in order to function. I don't have the freedom to stop your freedom. That's why restrictions exist. That's why balance is rewarded in nature, it's not always good, but in the long run it works and that's why it continues to stand.

The wet dream of an Anarchist, "true" freedom, will never exist. True freedom is a paradox. Proper freedom opens up possibilities yielding benefits for you and me, but "true" freedom opens up the possibility of killing itself. If you can do whatever you want in an Anarchy (with enough people backing you up), what's stopping you from generating authority?

 

If you still don't get it, think of it like this; True freedom is absolute zero (temperature). 

"Every atom is influenced by those around it, which allows the transfers of energy, which ruins your plans to achieve absolute zero."

[MenaAthena]

Guys, can't we just have a calm discussion about personal opinions on government vs. the lack there of without getting flustered or throwing out personal jabs?

Oh wait, this is the internet. Forget I asked.

[KidneyBeanBoy]

Okay, I was going to put in another dumb comment about a tissue-based government, but I have a feeling this argument is going to get out of hand, so I'll say this:

None of the stuff discussed in this thread really matters. People's political views are going to stay the same, no matter how many facts are brought up about what happened in the past or what's up with human nature. People's political views aren't based on fact. They are based on freaking. Values. You can't change those. And even if you could make everyone value freedom over safety (or vice versa), the government likes to keep their jobs, and anarchists don't like giving up. So just drop it.

[Auth]

After a somewhat careful examination,

 

XirmiX is nothing more than a stubborn, mislead, emotion-lacking attention *****.

 

After several attempts at becoming his friend, he took everything I said and somehow turned it into fuel against me and my beliefs. He fails to realize the reality of things, only accepting what he wants to, which has lead to his severe corruption. He only says things to get an angered response out of people, and laughs at hurting people, apparently.

 

 

I feel no need to feed him any longer. Good day, everybody.

[XirmiX]

Oh my god. Please. Stop. I'm gonna stop joking around and get to the point.

 

Anarchists are not maniacs. They are literally deluded idealists who don't understand the implications of human nature and the cost of freedom. Freedom, like literally any social construct sacrifices a part of society in order to function. I don't have the freedom to stop your freedom. That's why restrictions exist. That's why balance is rewarded in nature, it's not always good, but in the long run it works and that's why it continues to stand.

The wet dream of an Anarchist, "true" freedom, will never exist. True freedom is a paradox. Proper freedom opens up possibilities yielding benefits for you and me, but "true" freedom opens up the possibility of killing itself. If you can do whatever you want in an Anarchy (with enough people backing you up), what's stopping you from generating authority?

 

If you still don't get it, think of it like this; True freedom is absolute zero (temperature). 

"Every atom is influenced by those around it, which allows the transfers of energy, which ruins your plans to achieve absolute zero."

 

EDIT: This is pointless, isn't it? I can't expect the anarchists of all people to understand balance..

Ehh... You know that I know that, right? Anarchists are not delusional. The kind of freedom you are talking about is freedom to do absolutely anything, including taking power (which is a paradox freedom as you said, as it cannot be a freedom for everyone). I'm talking about freedom in terms of freedom to do anything for yourself. This does not require authority. And no, the freedom I'm talking about does not sacrifice safety. It gives you the responsibility to take your own safety in your own hands, possibly backed up by other people if they are willing to. The freedom you're talking about is what the elite has already; the right to do ANYTHING they want, including take power over others. Authority brings safety to certain people, not everyone, where as anarchy gives responsibility to all people to protect themselves and each other. Authority destroys more people than it saves.

 

Finally we're actually getting to a real debate, goddamit.

[Snob]

I'm talking about freedom in terms of freedom to do anything for yourself. This does not require authority. And no, the freedom I'm talking about does not sacrifice safety. It gives you the responsibility to take your own safety in your own hands, possibly backed up by other people if they are willing to. The freedom you're talking about is what the elite has already; the right to do ANYTHING they want, including take power over others. Authority brings safety to certain people, not everyone, where as anarchy gives responsibility to all people to protect themselves and each other. Authority destroys more people than it saves.

 

Finally we're actually getting to a real debate, goddamit.

Wait, let me get this straight, Anarchy is the lack of authority correct? The lack of restrictions within a society?

[Pyromailmann]

irmi, you really have been losing it, that's why I unfriended you, because kept up with Conspiracy nonsense.

I've said multiple times (any you can go back and look at what I've said in his' status updates about stuff like this) you are losing it. I show no care to the government or any care to the Police Force. I could live in a world with no government and I'd survive (despite my weakness to making choices, which isn't much of a weakness).

[jbeetle]

irmi, you really have been losing it, that's why I unfriended you, because kept up with Conspiracy nonsense.

I have a few friends that are conspiracists on Facebook, and I have to say, they're way more entertaining and worthwhile to watch/read than all the normies. No way will I ever unfriend them!

[KidneyBeanBoy]

Okay, I was going to put in another dumb comment about a tissue-based government, but I have a feeling this argument is going to get out of hand, so I'll say this:

None of the stuff discussed in this thread really matters. People's political views are going to stay the same (And at this rate, I don't think you'd be able to win over whoever you're arguing with), no matter how many facts are brought up about what happened in the past or what's up with human nature. People's political views aren't based on fact. They are based on freaking. Values. You can't change those. And even if you could make everyone value freedom over safety (or vice versa), the government likes to keep their jobs, and anarchists don't like giving up. So just drop it.

[Asparagus]

• XirmiXBut if people like me change the mind set of other people (like you), then there would be NO need for "The Purge" and as I said, "no taxes, no problems" solution would take place. I'd prefer the "no taxes, no problems" solution, so this is why I am telling this to YOU right now. You get it now? 
  Mar 02 2015 11:27 PM
• Asparagus*sigh... even villages in third world countries have a form of authority or government but that doesn't mean that they're better-off without them. In those cases, they actually need them... it's not the government or authority that's to blame, it's the TYPE of people... 
  Mar 03 2015 12:39 PM · Delete
• Asparagus...if for example, you have a stand-up guy in power, one who doesn't do shady deals, someone who made people's lives better, transparent governance... would anyone want to overthrow him? I still stand by the concept of a ruling body to deal with managing a country... the PEOPLE in power are who to blame for being so terrible that people question their authority... 
  Mar 03 2015 12:39 PM · Delete
• Asparagus...and not the "government" as a whole... or government itself... 
  Mar 03 2015 12:44 PM · Delete
• XirmiXIt's much more complicated than that tbh. If I haven't mentioned yet, I'd advise watching Larken Rose's videos. Also, throughout the history it is proven that all government has done is problems. And it is shown that no authority has made people much more free and happy... 
  Mar 04 2015 12:22 AM
• XirmiX... Before there was monarchy or hyerarchy of any kind, there was anarchy. Anarchy was where we started and our lives were fine, there was no chaos. What makes you think that without anyone in charge people couldn't do the same? 
  Mar 04 2015 12:23 AM
• XirmiXThe same today, I mean. 
  Mar 04 2015 12:23 AM

 

@XirmiX, I ask again, is it really the government you are really against or is it the people abusing their power in the government (or any ruling body)?

 

I'm worried about you O__O

[XirmiX]

Okay, so, really you see me as a bad person because I've said bad things to you because of how I saw you portray yourself.

The fact is, this isn't conspiracies, because a conspiracy is something that MIGHT be true, whilst what I've said IS true. Let me explain and then you might understand why. I do indeed want a normal discussion here, even if it turns out that we're insulting each other (I don't care if you call me stubborn or whatevet. It's just words that doesn't really have any intent except insulting).

So, from what I see, everyone of you think that government is legitemate and that it is necessary, because else it's chaos. So. You vote for a particular party in hope that it will get elected to have power and issue what they have been advocating. Doesn't sound like there's anything wrong with it, right? The fact is; you are literally asking the government to do things your way via voting whivh other people might find unlegit or immoral. Say you vote for a particular party to make something you want in place and make it funded by everyone. If the party gets into power, there will be people who will not want to fund the things which you wanted to be in place, so if they refuse to contribute to what you wanted to be funded, they will be lovked away, where as if the party didn't get into power, this would not happene and the people wouldn't be seen as criminals. You think that it's legitemate, even though immoral just because it's done by the way of government? And that if you had done this as an individual by hiering someone to go to another persons house demanding to give money for funding what you believe should be funded by everyone but that person doesn't, only then it wouldn't be legitemate? You realize that you are funding a bunch of criminals, referring to themselves as "authority" even though what they do wrong is still going to stay immoral? You're literally advocating violence through the way of government. None is contributing to these things voluntarily, but because they are forced with a threat. Also, if you think that the "law enforcers" are there to protect people, you are absolutely misguided. They enforce the law, and if the law says that they should kill people for reasons that do not actually harm anyone, they will do it. The only thing that is keeping you safe from any harm, bebit governmet's "law enforcers" or individual criminals is you and the people around you. If you think you can't trust a stranger, think about how much of a stranger is a "law enforcer".

Trying to make a discussion here, so please could you really stop going at me just because I've said certain things in a certain manner. It's the way I talk and get my point across.

[Snob]

You think the current system sucks. What system works? How would it work? Why would you think it works?

[CyanBlue]

imagine your mom gets cancer and anarchy is a thing 

good luck : )

 

Seriously though, the current system may not be perfect but it's way better than anarchy, edgy people like you who think every government hates everyone and only wants money and power sound pretty f ucking delusional

[XirmiX]

imagine your mom gets cancer and anarchy is a thing

good luck : )

Seriously though, the current system may not be perfect but it's way better than anarchy, edgy people like you who think every government hates everyone and only wants money and power sound pretty f ucking delusional

If my mom got cancer, no matter what system there was she couldn't escape it unless there was suddenly found a cure for it, so you make 0 sense. Suggesting that within anarchist society people wouldn't care about curing or any medical treatment is false. There's been so many times where I've heard that people love to be able to help each other in terms of medication and aid, that it would be impossible for no medical care taking place with anarchy in place. Proof: after the Spanish Anarchist revolution in 1936, a lot of people within the free society voluntarily helped each other out, including the medical care. It wasn't any authority saying that someone should do it, they did it by their own conscious will. And this isn't a small group, but societies as big as cities I'm talking about here. So it's great you made that example and I'm glad to explain it to you that government has nothing to do with medical care whatsoever. How doctors, medics etc. Would get stuff to live off and get enough equipment to use? Charity; voluntary interaction by willingly funding it, instead of being forced to. Think that people wouldn't fund it as much as it would need to be? I know an anarchist who provides free education and takes charity as a way of sustaining himself and getting the resources to educate individuals. He's living pretty decently and he's got nothing to do with government from what he does and what he earns.

So no, anarchy isn't a system of edgy people. And for a fact we know that any type of government is destructive, forceful and immoral as well as illegitemate. Becuase that'sbwhat makes it a "government". Else if it didn't do all the crazy **** that it does, it would be more like a corporation.

[XirmiX]

You think the current system sucks. What system works? How would it work? Why would you think it works?

Read my previous post. In other words; the best government is no government at all.

It's kind of funny that you guys ask "Well, what if X" instead of actually looking at what's happened and at what is happening.

[XxTheGentleManScientistxX]

If my mom got cancer, no matter what system there was she couldn't escape it unless there was suddenly found a cure 

My grandma survived cancer, so . . . yeah...its possible.

 

 

Sorry . . .

 

 

 

I am allll with anarchy now, I want the world to be like this!

 

 

 

 

 

We must hurry, I want to gamble and kill.

[CyanBlue]

If my mom got cancer, no matter what system there was she couldn't escape it unless there was suddenly found a cure for it, so you make 0 sense. Suggesting that within anarchist society people wouldn't care about curing or any medical treatment is false. There's been so many times where I've heard that people love to be able to help each other in terms of medication and aid, that it would be impossible for no medical care taking place with anarchy in place. Proof: after the Spanish Anarchist revolution in 1936, a lot of people within the free society voluntarily helped each other out, including the medical care. It wasn't any authority saying that someone should do it, they did it by their own conscious will. And this isn't a small group, but societies as big as cities I'm talking about here. So it's great you made that example and I'm glad to explain it to you that government has nothing to do with medical care whatsoever. How doctors, medics etc. Would get stuff to live off and get enough equipment to use? Charity; voluntary interaction by willingly funding it, instead of being forced to. Think that people wouldn't fund it as much as it would need to be? I know an anarchist who provides free education and takes charity as a way of sustaining himself and getting the resources to educate individuals. He's living pretty decently and he's got nothing to do with government from what he does and what he earns.

So no, anarchy isn't a system of edgy people. And for a fact we know that any type of government is destructive, forceful and immoral as well as illegitemate. Becuase that'sbwhat makes it a "government". Else if it didn't do all the crazy **** that it does, it would be more like a corporation.

how do people earn the money they give the anarchist dude for education?

also education is not medicine, medical equipment is a shi tton more expensive, i dont think thered be enough people that would want to fund an anarchist doctor 

 

this really isnt a debate, you're just trying to call everyone who thinks the government isnt that bad idiots, proving that you've FINALLY opened your eyes because some dude in a youtube video told you to (freedom!) and backing it up with some spanish revolution that didnt change jack **** 

[XirmiX]

how do people earn the money they give the anarchist dude for education?

also education is not medicine, medical equipment is a shi tton more expensive, i dont think thered be enough people that would want to fund an anarchist doctor 

 

this really isnt a debate, you're just trying to call everyone who thinks the government isnt that bad idiots, proving that you've FINALLY opened your eyes because some dude in a youtube video told you to (freedom!) and backing it up with some spanish revolution that didnt change jack **** 

First of all, just because it's youtube, doesn't mean it's unreliable. Second of all, the revolution changed a ton of jack ****. If you go and read about it yourself instead of talking like it never happened, you might know more about it.

 

When you're asking me "how do people earn money they give the anarchist dude for education?"... why are you asking me this exactly? If you think goernment is the thing that gives money to people most of the time... I don't think you know how economics work.

 

And how is this not a debate? I have my points, you have my points, I'm trying to prove you my point, you're trying to prove me your point. That's what a debate is, check the definition before spouting out something that doesn't make sense -.-

 

 

My grandma survived cancer, so . . . yeah...its possible.

 

 

Sorry . . .

 

 

 

I am allll with anarchy now, I want the world to be like this!

 

 

 download.jpg

 

 

 

We must hurry, I want to gamble and kill.

 

Are you gonna give me reasons or are you just gonna keep making assumptions? If you're here all for posting assumptions, there's no reason for you to post here anything, really.

[Snob]

Read my previous post. In other words; the best government is no government at all.

It's kind of funny that you guys ask "Well, what if X" instead of actually looking at what's happened and at what is happening.

What? Nothing you say makes any sense.

 

If there's no government at all, people will eventually find a way to gain authority.

 

>I'm talking about freedom in terms of freedom to do anything for yourself. This does not require authority.

>freedom to do anything for yourself

>anything for yourself

>yourself

 

Jesus Christ. Anarchy does not provide a platform to enforce freedom, because everyone is up to their own businesses. Your anti-authority stance is making you look retarded, because authority is an integral part of not only society, but human nature. People can't do anything without organizing themselves into groups. Groups function have to reinforce authority, and because individuals are weak and wither, while people who band together to strive and last. That's why any of this exists. The lack of authority has never advanced humanity.

[Halved]

XirmiX is never going to listen guys.

He is covering his ears and going full "LALALA IM NOT LISTENING ANARCHY IS THE BEST"