Do any of you statists even know what anarchy is? You all seem to be using the late 20th century propagandised definition for some reason.
You're right, Anarchy have many definitions and it is pointless to talk about something people have very different definitions.
I wish people knew some basic about discussion before talking.
Why is it pointless to gather information on the opinions of others? If it turns out that it's the different definition of anarchy causing the dispute, then a simple clarification from the anarchists would indicate that, and we could further the discussion.
So again, somebody, enlighten us "weak statists" about what makes you big strong anarchy man.
Fair enough, saying I'm an adult should be enough.
You're ducking his real point and you know you're doing it.
It makes no difference if you're 16 or 60, the question is have you ever seen human brutality from anywhere outside of a computer screen? Have you ever witnessed it, experienced what it's like to be there, to be a victim of it? Because if you can't, then you really have no earthly idea how you would actually respond in that situation.
More weakness. Sophistry instead of sound arguments. Your "faith in humanity" is just another variant of "but my feels!".
The world is a harsh place, and it won't get any easier with an outlook like that. Work on constructive solutions.
Uhh, you do realize I said I lack faith in humanity. It is my belief that many do not commit crimes out of fear for the law, not out of any moral obligation. Furthermore, it is my belief that if shit hits the fan, a great amount of people that didn't need to commit crimes in our current society will be willing to do anything up to and including murder to ensure their own are fed.
Is a world where you could wind up with the business end of a hammer in the back of your skull without warning a world you want to live in? Is a world where leaders are decided by how bloodthirsty they are, and power vacuums are created constantly a world you want to live in? If so, then I'd ask you the same question: how much human brutality have you experienced?
And if you truly think you're "hard" enough to survive in that environment, just remember that unless you're the hardest guy in the world, there's always someone harder.
http://monoskop.org/images/4/42/Ludlow_Peter_Crypto_Anarchy_Cyberstates_and_Pirate_Utopias.pdf
Cyphernomicon Timothy C May
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/crypto/cypherpunks/cyphernomicon/CP-FAQFor people
interested in cryptography, and in the topics being discussed today regarding "anarchy" and society, and the state and defining and redefining the definitions of its reach and its boundaries in an ever increasing technological age, then the above is some good/interesting
(essential?) background reading"
it seems to me that the issues we are talking about, are actually evolving , both sides of the "argument" and that looking at things in a totally linear way is not going to help.
The world is (as it always has been) changing, and evolving, and I am hoping, as many people are, that we can get past the most crucial elements of society , being decided, or ruled by "the business end of a hammer"
The world has changed a lot in the past 100 years, and will continue to do so.
There are very clear, and very real arguments for evolving the current systems we have in place, "government" as it is today is far from perfect, and far from the answer to everything. Pure "anarchy" in the terms, that 12 years old see it, is of course far from perfect... (nobody serious, or genuine in the wish to debate sees "anarchy" as being the definition of no government at all, imo)
There is a very good case that some of the roles currently undertaken by central governments, can be replaced, as many roles will be, by other mechanisims, which are fairer, less expensive, more democratic, and that reduce the potential for abuse at the hands of power hungry and evil pigs , that seem to flock into politics. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the more centralised power is, the more the potential for corruption at the core becomes a problem. The same reason that communism did not work, is the same reason the system we have now does not work. If any of the jobs currently undertaken by swindling politicans can be replaced by a machine or public votes or protocol or a combination of all of the above, and the result is good, then I am all for it.
To say, that you must have a plan, to replace government is fair enough, however, it does not mean that the conversation is over , or that you have come to a solution yourself. Semantics, is still semantics. The problem is real and is becoming more and more evident, and the discussion will continue because of this alone.
The idea, that something that has never been possible before, can be made possible in the future, is also acceptable, and even probable, the idea that things will stay the same for ever, is highly unlikely.
There is nothing wrong with questioning and exploring everything, yes, everything, from the ideas of "anarchy" or "libertarianism" to the concept of government, big government, small government... there would not even be anything wrong, with taking the best bits fro everything, and leaving the rest, an coming up with something that is possible in the coming ages, and that works, or at least works better than what we have now. I am a proponent of change, of progress, of adapting, of evolution.. and also of accepting the realities we face.
Anyone that is not concerned about the path that we have been taken down in the past, and more importantly actually the hole we have been taken down, in the past 20 years especially, and continue to go down, in terms or big government and big finance and big industry, and the implications that it has for future society, and the things happening right now as we speak, that have far reaching implications on our political and our society and our futures, and humanities future... is just not paying attention.
There is a very grave risk from crony government, and their cohorts, to the liberty and future, anyone that ignores this, has their head in the sand.
To question, is not necessarily to mock, and it is not necessarily to evoke and entrench ones self in a polarising manner.
It seems to be a waste, if all one is interested in is bickering the same old tired positions, while the world is busy morphing before their very eyes, and making the arguments of both sides almost redundant, or worse, too late to question anymore.
Big government , it is starting to become evident once again, is not a good thing.
No government, no systems rather , at all is not a good thing either.
Guess what, there is something inbetween!!
With technology, and minds and people and the will to question, explore, solution finding... things that were not possible before... become possible...
Things change.
Things are changing.
Evolving society, evolving law and government and techology are all happening. (and are all double edged swords, and none are closed loop systems)
If people like it or not, the debate about these things and the potential for change from de-cecentralisation, and automation, is on the menu for discussion, they are part of the body of potential solutions to problems, that ARE real, and the solutions are being explored and will continue to be explored, and no doubt will have some impact on the future of this world, not only in terms of business, but in terms of governance and society too. That much is for sure.
We have to be careful though, as the government at the moment, and their puppet masters in big industry, are continuing to attempt to continue to have absolute control over the architecture of society, the very veins that the structures of society stands (indeed this is how power is mantained, be it oil or water etc but more and more so no it be in the realms of information and data (inc money))
Having control of the architecture, in this case, of information renders privacy as void, which means that there is no free speech, there is no opporftunity for true political dissent, there is no chance of a meanigful revolution in the event one is needed, there is no freedom of choice. The more they control the architecture , the more ability they have to control the bottlenecks. Bottlenecks in societys mechanisms for protecting itself from a government overstepping the mark. This is essentially bad.
There is , and will be a solution, and things will evolve, to think otherwise renders one a dinosaur, and frankly a bore.
People need to step up to the plate, and more and more people around the world ARE doing just that, there is more and more dialouge and more and more innovation and more and more potential and more and more technology that is coming on line that is going to change the world (bringing new problems along with it as well as solutions)
At the moment, the closest thing I can see to chaos, is the suicide mission that the governments of the west seem to be taking us all on, unless they have got a big secret plan, it seems they are intent on self implosion (US, Euro, UK) and none of us want that... but yet... that does not seem to stop them, and I bet our votes are not going to change that ever. We might get a chance to test that "power vacuum" version of "anarchy" that keeps being brought up.. and if we do, it will be the government and their crony masters that brought us to that point. Great job, nothing to see here... no room for change, or improvement, or discussion I am sure.
