The Liberty Debate

[KidneyBeanBoy]

Do I need to quote my other post again? Because it seems like I should quote my other post again.

[Snob]

I'm right and you're wrong. I feel crushed but I am superior. You don't think for yourselves but I do.

[XxTheGentleManScientistxX]

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 -.-

 

 

 

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.

Well, my grandma did survive cancers, so that point is wrong.

 

 

2nd Its not a debate, if we go in circles over and over and over and over and over and over. I will post whatever I want, BECAUSE ITS ANARCHY I CAN POST WHAT I WANT!

 

*Burns house* *sets fire to fields* ANARCHY. ITS FREEDOM

 

 

Alright, but really.

 

 

 Anarchy is bad because without government we would have pretty much nothing, no services to our country, state or our community. anyone could do anything and get away with it because we wouldn't have laws!! 

More specifically, a state of Anarchy is defined as one without any government. Citizens may band together for various purposes, but there is no common government (and, thus, no law). 

Given the rather self-centered and greedy natural character of human beings (particularly in large concentrations), any situation without some sort of overall control or law quickly degenerates into violence. Human beings have proven themselves to be unable to live together without some sort of master authority (with enforcement powers). No human society lives in anarchy - even the smallest and most primitive tribes have some sort of authority structure, which is government by another name. 

As to why Anarchy is bad, ask yourself this: if you could do whatever you wanted to, with no consequences to you from a "higher" authority (e.g. you could hit someone, and while they might hit you back, no police officer would intervene, and no one would be charged with a crime), what would you do? Now, how would the world be if everyone could do whatever they wanted to anytime? 

 

There are, to be sure, many different kinds of proposed “anarchies,” or I should say, proposals of how people would choose to live in a society that is free of a government. Anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, so on and so forth. I do believe that, were people to live without government, and we assume that we’re speaking of macroscopic societies and not tribes (which would be communistic in character), society is likely to take the form of anarcho-capitalism. Capitalism only predicates that people will keep for themselves what is theirs and only give out what is theirs provided someone is trading them something they want; the other kind of anarchies suppose that people will, for some reason, choose to give over their own property to others in the hope that others might also choose to give them what they want (and we assume that what people even choose to give is something that other people want). There are theoretical problems in abundance with those other anarchical systems, which are prevalent even in their statist versions, but I don’t mean to put forth an explanation of why those anarchies wouldn’t work.

 

What I want to do is explain why anarchy itself just cannot work.

 

There is a false distinction people make when it comes to social systems. People are apt to say, when it comes to a system like communism, that “it works on paper but doesn’t work in practice.” This is to make a distinction between theory and practice, when it comes to social systems. I think that, for other kinds of systems, we can maintain such a distinction, but when it comes to the consideration of social systems, it is simply the case that one is actually accounting for reality with their theory, or not. If a social system cannot work in practice, then it doesn’t work in theory either, since the “variables” of practice, as it were, that being the way people tend to act towards each other, the way they come together and form societies, is the very thing the theory is supposed to be accounting for. If the theory cannot work in practice, that is because in terms of the theoretical structure it does not account for what it portends to account for, namely, human social systems.

 

In short, if a social system cannot work in practice, then it also does not work in theory, because the theory is to account for whatever might occur in practice, and if it doesn’t account for practice, then it is a poor theory. It is like a physical theory which doesn’t account for gravity; it doesn’t work in theory because it doesn’t work in practice, it fails to account for what it portends to account for. If it doesn’t properly account for its subject matter, it is a poor theory.

 

Hence, I wish to draw out the conclusion that anarchy, of whatever variant, is theoretically inviable for the simple reason that it fails to account for its subject matter. It fails to work on paper because it makes some fundamental assumptions which can never be true, and trades on a definition of “government” which is quasi-mythical. Anarchy supposes stateless society; I do not understand that a society can even exist that does not have a state inherent to it.

 

If we suppose that the present government were to collapse tomorrow, there might persist, for a short while, “anarchy,” the occurrence of generally unbridled anti-civilizational behavior. Looting, killing, raping, and so on, all offenses against civilization and crimes, in such a time, which warrant shooting on site by whoever would defend civilization and try to uphold it. Quickly, it would occur that the antithesis to this chaos, an order constructed by communities to defend against such lawless and anti-civilizational behavior, will be put in place, which provides a mechanism for dealing with crime and exacting retribution and recompense for the victim.

 

It is meant to operate on those who do not negotiate, who do not make an agreement for trade or contract with those who are violated. In other words, it is meant to operate against those who do not come under its power willfully and freely, to override their “anarchical” liberty. But then, is this not once more a state, even if one that is much less grandiose?

 

Where you have a system in place meant to deal with those who do not negotiate, i.e. law, you have a state. It may be a very small state and one which self-described anarchists are okay with, but it is, nonetheless, a kind of state. If we understand this to be the natural order of society (and I believe it is), then anarchy is theoretically impossible. People are apt to form communities that abide by laws which operate on those who do not agree to them (but then that is the need for and essence of law itself).

 

However, I think a theoretical adjustment can be forwarded, and it is one I’m very sympathetic to. The anarchist can very well accept that such is the kind of government they would prefer (unless they literally want no laws whatsoever, but then what do we care about them at that point?) and maintain their essential position on the otherwise exploitive and unjust nature of government. Anything which goes beyond the law of community is unjust. This position could be called anarchotarianism.

 

So there is a problem with anarchy, but not the anarchical theory itself, at least, provided we can forward that kind of adjustment.

 

 

Again, you are diluted to believe that it will work...

[Dipps]

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.

Ohohoh, lemme tell you.

[MenaAthena]

@Halved, you do realize we're kinda doing the same thing, right? Points have been made for government that Xirmix doesn't understand, and points against government have been made that we don't understand. We've all made our points and not come to an understanding, so now we're just bouncing the same arguments back and forth pointlessly, and no one's opinions are going to change. No matter how much we may try to be impartial, our way of thinking and beliefs are always going to make us biased in some way; that's just how it works. What Xirmix says makes sense to him because of how he thinks and what he believes, but it may not make sense to you or me, and vice versa. And really, why are we so worked up over this? We already know that anarchy could never happen, so why are we getting so worked up over someone who wants it to happen? I don't even know why I keep coming back to this thread anymore.

[KidneyBeanBoy]

@Halved, you do realize we're kinda doing the same thing, right? Points have been made for government that Xirmix doesn't understand, and points against government have been made that we don't understand. We've all made our points and not come to an understanding, so now we're just bouncing the same arguments back and forth pointlessly, and no one's opinions are going to change. No matter how much we may try to be impartial, our way of thinking and beliefs are always going to make us biased in some way; that's just how it works. What Xirmix says makes sense to him because of how he thinks and what he believes, but it may not make sense to you or me, and vice versa. And really, why are we so worked up over this? We already know that anarchy could never happen, so why are we getting so worked up over someone who wants it to happen? I don't even know why I keep coming back to this thread anymore.

I was going to quote my post again, but this is actually way more thorough than what I wrote. Thanks.

[XirmiX]

Hmm... So, democracy (i.e. capitalism) works irl, does it? Facts tell otherwise:

 

 

For two, you guys are literally saying that human beings are irresponsible idiots. The only thing that makes you an irresponsible idiot is IF you walk the path of authority. Let me explain. You said that people are too stupid by nature that they will want and need a leader. The fact is that no, people didn't have leaders at the beginning and leadership did not form because people needed it. It was because they wanted it for reasons unknown. If we are all stupid idiots, then we wouldn't even have the idea to make authority for ourselves and none really would be able to be authority... because in your mind we ALL are stupid idiots. If you take the responsibility of becoming a leader for yourself, that is the way that would lead to anarchy working, which is what happened long ago before we even made any so called "leaders". To be able to make leaders, we have to first lead ourselves and gather together.

 

Not sure if I've said this before, but if I did, I'll say it again: the reason why people will want to make leaders again and again is not because it's their nature, but because they got attached to having one too much and got too reliant. If you want a leader for yourself, that means you do not think for yourself, but desperately beg for someone to take a step forward and sort all your problems out. Being an absolute begging follower IS what makes you a sheep. If the governments of the world were to fall, you would be among those who would just be desperately trying to rebuild a new one, while I wouldn't give a **** and just continue living my life. The more you beg "auhtority" and follow them, the greater they'll become to an extent that if they do anything immoral, you will see it as an ok thing. THAT is what makes YOU a sheep. If you are not responsible and are not leading yourself, you're not a human being. You're a sheep that will beg for his/her shepherd to do whatever to solve your problems.

 

Guys, I completely understand your points. But that does not mean I agree with them. Though what you say may seem legit at first glance, looking at points against "authority" just outranks it. It seems to me that you want it so badly that you will never give it up and make up assumptions that will keep your opinion secure.

 

NOTICE: if you live in America (which you most of you probably do), tell me, have you ever called a cop? What happened in the situation? I'm just curious; because from what I've seen and people have said to me, is that less than 5% of cops in US have been actually protecting the people and that less than 5% of emergencies cops, when called 911 have actually get there in time to solve the crime. So if the "law enforcers" don't protect the people, who does? It seems to me like it's mostly the people themselves that have been protecting themselves and each other and that "authority" is the threat and is much more villainous than the individuals.

[CyanBlue]

What facts prove otherwise? A youtube video? Can't you just take a look around and see for yourself (important!) that everything is mostly fine? Oh, wait we're all SHEEP and cant see the TRUTH!!!!!!

 

The fact is that no, people didn't have leaders at the beginning and leadership did not form because people needed it.

Where's the fact? can you even prove that people didnt have leaders at the beginning? do you have an epic youtube video proving that too?

 

It seems to me that you want it so badly that you will never give it up and make up assumptions that will keep your opinion secure.

That's exactly what you do lmao

 

[MenaAthena]

Guys, this is the point where you bite your lip and just let this die.

[XirmiX]

What facts prove otherwise? A youtube video? Can't you just take a look around and see for yourself (important!) that everything is mostly fine? Oh, wait we're all SHEEP and cant see the TRUTH!!!!!!

 

 

 

Where's the fact? can you even prove that people didnt have leaders at the beginning? do you have an epic youtube video proving that too?

 

 

 

That's exactly what you do lmao

Ugh... I was trying to make a discussion, but it seems you guys don't. It isn't that I love the idea of anarchy and without thinking just went for it. I thought about it myself. Freedom is what had made me happy. Freedom is what will make me happy. It's what I've always desired. Because without freedom your life is meaningless.

 

You guys are quite ignorant because it doesn't seem to me that you even watched the video. If you're not gonna bother with it just because it's been on youtube, then you're probably just gonna think bias. I was not thinking bias. I was thinking both sides of the argument myself, but my conclusion was that no government is ever legitimate.

 

Can you prove that people DID have leaders in the beginnig? No. Can I prove that humans didn't have leaders in the beginning? Answer me this; how could leadership possibly come before anarchy? Logically it doesn't make sense, does it?

 

It doesn't seem like any of our opinions will chance, so before you go all psycho, I'm ending the discussion here. Say what you want, but right now you're showing that you truly are irresponsible people.

[Halved]

No. I've understood XirmiX's point of view.

I've analyzed them and understood them. I relate to some too.

What i can't stand though is that this is the fourth or more time XirmiX gets into a discussion about anarchy. And from the first time to now he still has never changed any of his ideas and he is still stubbornly trying to pull us into his believes!

[CyanBlue]

lock thread pls :')

[XirmiX]

If you want a leader for yourself and blindly follow them or whatever, fine, you're doing that from your own will. But I, on the other hand do NOT want a leader for myself. Neither do I want to lead anyone else. Though I cannot have that, because all of the world's land has been taken over by your "authorities". In short, you are forcing me to obey what I could not care less about and rebuke.

 

"Don't walk behind me; I might not lead.

Don't walk in front of me; I might not follow.

Just walk beside me and be my friend."

[KidneyBeanBoy]

lock thread pls :')

Seconded. This is getting really idiotic.

[XirmiX]

One last question for you guys: have you seen either one or both of "The Purge" movies? Do you think they're accurate in portraying anarchy?

[Hugo M.]

Please dont close this thread, this is wonderful to read while eating popcorn!

[Snob]

It doesn't seem like any of our opinions will chance, so before you go all psycho, I'm ending the discussion here. Say what you want, but right now you're showing that you truly are irresponsible people.

What?? We're ending this beautiful one sided argument now?! That's just sore.

One last question for you guys: have you seen either one or both of "The Purge" movies? Do you think they're accurate in portraying anarchy?

Yes. The Purge was an accurate portrayal of anarchy. Don't you know, chaos and violence equals anarchy?? Ignorance is bliss. We are good people, good sheep. I am incapable of thinking for myself. Heil Hitler! Heil Hitler!

[XxTheGentleManScientistxX]

Hmm... So, democracy (i.e. capitalism) works irl, does it? Facts tell otherwise:

 

 

For two, you guys are literally saying that human beings are irresponsible idiots. The only thing that makes you an irresponsible idiot is IF you walk the path of authority. Let me explain. You said that people are too stupid by nature that they will want and need a leader. The fact is that no, people didn't have leaders at the beginning and leadership did not form because people needed it. It was because they wanted it for reasons unknown. If we are all stupid idiots, then we wouldn't even have the idea to make authority for ourselves and none really would be able to be authority... because in your mind we ALL are stupid idiots. If you take the responsibility of becoming a leader for yourself, that is the way that would lead to anarchy working, which is what happened long ago before we even made any so called "leaders". To be able to make leaders, we have to first lead ourselves and gather together.

 

Not sure if I've said this before, but if I did, I'll say it again: the reason why people will want to make leaders again and again is not because it's their nature, but because they got attached to having one too much and got too reliant. If you want a leader for yourself, that means you do not think for yourself, but desperately beg for someone to take a step forward and sort all your problems out. Being an absolute begging follower IS what makes you a sheep. If the governments of the world were to fall, you would be among those who would just be desperately trying to rebuild a new one, while I wouldn't give a **** and just continue living my life. The more you beg "authority" and follow them, the greater they'll become to an extent that if they do anything immoral, you will see it as an ok thing. THAT is what makes YOU a sheep. If you are not responsible and are not leading yourself, you're not a human being. You're a sheep that will beg for his/her shepherd to do whatever to solve your problems.

 

Guys, I completely understand your points. But that does not mean I agree with them. Though what you say may seem legit at first glance, looking at points against "authority" just outranks it. It seems to me that you want it so badly that you will never give it up and make up assumptions that will keep your opinion secure.

 

NOTICE: if you live in America (which you most of you probably do), tell me, have you ever called a cop? What happened in the situation? I'm just curious; because from what I've seen and people have said to me, is that less than 5% of cops in US have been actually protecting the people and that less than 5% of emergencies cops, when called 911 have actually get there in time to solve the crime. So if the "law enforcers" don't protect the people, who does? It seems to me like it's mostly the people themselves that have been protecting themselves and each other and that "authority" is the threat and is much more villainous than the individuals.

YES EVERYONE AGREES THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS BEING A HUGE ASS.

 

But I rather have one than none.

 

Also someone once broke into my house. I called the police and they caught him. After I stabbed him 36 times.

 

I rather have that cop than me.

 

There is no changing your opinion, EVERYONE IS GOING IN CIRCLES. You are hope-less. 

 

Did you read what I said? You never replied...

[XxTheGentleManScientistxX]

If you want a leader for yourself and blindly follow them or whatever, fine, you're doing that from your own will. But I, on the other hand do NOT want a leader for myself. Neither do I want to lead anyone else. Though I cannot have that, because all of the world's land has been taken over by your "authorities". In short, you are forcing me to obey what I could not care less about and rebuke.

 

"Don't walk behind me; I might not lead.

Don't walk in front of me; I might not follow.

Just walk beside me and be my friend."

WE don't blindly follow the leader...

 

 

We make debates

 

We fight for freedoms.

 

We all say the government can be jerks.

 

We don't sit and follow everything.

 

Have you even heard of segregation? We didn't just FOLLOW the leader we fought , and won. 

 

Have you heard of women's rights? We fought for that too...

[jbeetle]

It's neat to think about such scenarios though, even though they'll never happen - like winning the lottery - neat to think about at least/most.

[XxTheGentleManScientistxX]

Ugh... I was trying to make a discussion, but it seems you guys don't. It isn't that I love the idea of anarchy and without thinking just went for it. I thought about it myself. Freedom is what had made me happy. Freedom is what will make me happy. It's what I've always desired. Because without freedom your life is meaningless.

 

You guys are quite ignorant because it doesn't seem to me that you even watched the video. If you're not gonna bother with it just because it's been on youtube, then you're probably just gonna think bias. I was not thinking bias. I was thinking both sides of the argument myself, but my conclusion was that no government is ever legitimate.

 

Can you prove that people DID have leaders in the beginnig? No. Can I prove that humans didn't have leaders in the beginning? Answer me this; how could leadership possibly come before anarchy? Logically it doesn't make sense, does it?

 

It doesn't seem like any of our opinions will chance, so before you go all psycho, I'm ending the discussion here. Say what you want, but right now you're showing that you truly are irresponsible people.

Mesopotamia was the first human civilization, Which in fact HAD A LEADER....

 

Guess leaders went that far back huh?

 

(Some of the important historical Mesopotamian leaders were Ur-Nammu...)

 

WOW! I don't see any anarchy human species here today...

[Rosten]

Praise Helix, let anarchy reign.

[Quiet]

Alright, time to kill my reputation as a forumgoer!

 

I am against almost every form of government, control system, and official organization in place today.

 

Why?  It's simple.  The amount of control they have over you.  Let's be honest here, would any of us pay taxes, get an inspector, heck, even attend a public school if you weren't forced into it on threats of imprisonment or physical violence?  Would you give half a year's earnings, your hard-earned money, to pay for "services" you didn't want or need?

 

Let me give you an example from personal experience.  My family recently moved to another state to start a different way of life.  We had plans to build a new design of Eco-friendly house, an earthship for anyone who knows what that is.  We're on a hundred acres, nowhere near any people who could become "uncomfortable" or "nervous" around it.  The houses are being built all over the world.

 

We've been waiting almost 2 years to get a permit so we can build that damn thing.

 

The gist of it is, what is the point of controlling so much, down to the littlest thing?  If the government only punished those doing actual harm to people, but other than that just left everyone alone, I would be all for it.  If they worked off moral law instead of something someone wrote down on a piece of paper, they would be fantastic.  But other than that, the amount of control they have is unacceptable.

 

Here's a video that explains it better than I can.

 

 

[Rosten]

Don't worry Quiet, I already lost all my forum-cred by posting a Helix reference in a thread that was /supposed/ to be serious.

[Quiet]

Thanks, Blazing.  That brings my reputation right back up to 100%.

 

Quick!  Edit my profile picture in an amusing way to break the tension!