First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Autocracy
299 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Samsara
Offline
Posted 2/11/08

G4CKT wrote:

No lol because most dictatorships think they are better than everyone which creates racism xD and assimilation lol


What?

That's a ridiculous assumption,do you know that the Romans were racist,which was rare in the ancient world,and this mindset dates back when their government was still a republic?
Posted 2/11/08
i predict that someone is going to go for ruling the world someday.
9584 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / In Memphis, with...
Offline
Posted 2/11/08

Hawker wrote:

Responding to the OP.

There are only two perfect forms of government in the world:

A dictatorship ruled by an enlightened despot who puts the needs of the people and the state first before himself,the first servant of the state if you will.Take for example the monarchs of 18th century Europe,notably Frederick the Great.

OR

If you have true faith in humanity,Anarchy.There will be no governments or laws to tell people how to live their lives,every man will be their own leader and for once in the history of the human race,be able to be masters of their own destiny.

Every other form of government besides those two,are lies.


Too good to be close to perfect. I agree with you in the point. However both of them are only perfect in theory if we place them in modern society.

Dictatorship also has negative consequences, take Castro again, he was in pro of the people, and all that stuff during the revolution, but he get drunk of power from a certain point of view. He would, and won't let any other 'dictator' more suitable for the job to succeed him, not until the day he dies, or so it looks like.

Anarchy is too risky, and the probabilities for a success in the XXI century are close to cero, very close. That would probably lead to a nation towards a potential fall in several aspects, such as economy, relationships, etc.

Now, I am not denying part of what you said. Yes, but let me correct, "There were two perfect forms of government in the world, none applicable nowadays."
299 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Samsara
Offline
Posted 2/11/08

HayatellAyasaki wrote:

Too good to be close to perfect. I agree with you in the point. However both of them are only perfect in theory if we place them in modern society.

Dictatorship also has negative consequences, take Castro again, he was in pro of the people, and all that stuff during the revolution, but he get drunk of power from a certain point of view. He would, and won't let any other 'dictator' more suitable for the job to succeed him, not until the day he dies, or so it looks like.

Anarchy is too risky, and the probabilities for a success in the XXI century are close to cero, very close. That would probably lead to a nation towards a potential fall in several aspects, such as economy, relationships, etc.

Now, I am not denying part of what you said. Yes, but let me correct, "There were two perfect forms of government in the world, none applicable nowadays."


I agree with your point on dictatorships.In modern times it's hard to find a good and honest man who would be willing to lead a country,without putting himself first before the needs of the state.

I disagree with your views on Anarchy.

Anarchy makes no promises and breaks none,thats the beauty of it.Of course there is risk with Anarchy,but people whom would choose the death of their body, over the death of their beliefs have no care for such concerns.

You see that's the problem with people these days, people live their lives without concern for anything other than their own safety. If we had more people with spines and pride we would not be living in the world we live in today.The modern wold is wracked with suffering, wars, etc. And who do you think is responsible for these things? Our leaders.

Anarchy calls for the destruction of the government and state,but does not necessarily call for the destruction of society, take for example the Second Republic of Spain, during the Civil War in the region of Catalonia, the Anarchists in the area established a society that provided free schooling, free health care, freed food distribution,etc. It ruled for three glorious years before Franco's Fascists crushed the movement. Their society practiced a school of thought of Anarchy, but it is not necessarily it's only form.

The spirit of anarchy can be best summed up by a famous writer and anarchist whom said:

"Anarchy wears two faces, both creator and destroyer.

Thus destroyers topple empires; make a canvas of clean rubble where creators can then build a better world.Rubble once achieved makes further ruins' means irrelevant.

Away with our explosives then!

Away with our destroyers!

They have no place within our better world.

But let us raise a toast to all our bombers, all our bastards,most unlovely and most unforgivable.Let's drink to their health...then meet with them no more."
9584 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / In Memphis, with...
Offline
Posted 2/11/08
But, do you think Anarchy would be even possible in modern times? I have big doubts about a possibility.
Posted 2/11/08

Hawker wrote:


G4CKT wrote:

No lol because most dictatorships think they are better than everyone which creates racism xD and assimilation lol


What?

That's a ridiculous assumption,do you know that the Romans were racist,which was rare in the ancient world,and this mindset dates back when their government was still a republic?


Im just generalizng bout hitler and the later ones thats why i said most not all.
299 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Samsara
Offline
Posted 2/12/08

HayatellAyasaki wrote:

But, do you think Anarchy would be even possible in modern times? I have big doubts about a possibility.


How so?
9584 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / In Memphis, with...
Offline
Posted 2/12/08

Hawker wrote:


HayatellAyasaki wrote:

But, do you think Anarchy would be even possible in modern times? I have big doubts about a possibility.


How so?


Modern society is not limited to internal relations only. If Anarchy was possible, and I repeat 'If,' then everything would be internal. How would it work worldwide socioeconomically-wise?
299 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Samsara
Offline
Posted 2/12/08

HayatellAyasaki wrote:


Hawker wrote:


HayatellAyasaki wrote:

But, do you think Anarchy would be even possible in modern times? I have big doubts about a possibility.


How so?


Modern society is not limited to internal relations only. If Anarchy was possible, and I repeat 'If,' then everything would be internal. How would it work worldwide socioeconomically-wise?


There are many schools of thought on Anarchy, for example there are some who call for a communist-style economy and there are others like myself whom believe in private property and distributing goods through a market.So it is not up to me or anyone else to say what type of society will arise after the fall of the state,each group shall adapt accordingly.

The world has always been ready for Anarchy as nothing has truly changed about humanity the last several millenniums.
9584 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / In Memphis, with...
Offline
Posted 2/12/08
^ Even so, if the entire world won't adapt to Anarchy, a single nation won't do a difference. Furthermore, I believe that is completely subjective, I seriously don't think the world has always been ready for Anarchy. Not now, not in a hundred years from now. If someday it happens, we won't be around.
299 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Samsara
Offline
Posted 2/12/08

HayatellAyasaki wrote:

^ Even so, if the entire world won't adapt to Anarchy, a single nation won't do a difference. Furthermore, I believe that is completely subjective, I seriously don't think the world has always been ready for Anarchy. Not now, not in a hundred years from now. If someday it happens, we won't be around.


And it is exactly that type of cautious nature,that need for safety that prevents mankind from overthrowing it's shackles.
9584 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / In Memphis, with...
Offline
Posted 2/12/08
^ That is merely a subjective statement, which I find out of place in such delicate matters. Yes, it might be blindly conservative, but mankind wouldn't put everything it has achieved -at least that is working so far- at stake in pro of a radical change.
434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / england
Offline
Posted 2/12/08
id say its pretty rare for a somewhere to actually hav a good ruler as they only go for election because of themselves and they act all goody goody before they get to their destination then its like a random change of personality
299 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Samsara
Offline
Posted 2/13/08

HayatellAyasaki wrote:

^ That is merely a subjective statement, which I find out of place in such delicate matters. Yes, it might be blindly conservative, but mankind wouldn't put everything it has achieved -at least that is working so far- at stake in pro of a radical change.


And why do you assume that society will collapse all together with the fall of the state?

Listen, 99% of world problems such as wars,genocides,etc. Are caused by 1% of its population. History time and time again has show that it's our leaders that are responsible for creating these crisis's.

Pro-radical change? Anarchy is the natural state of mankind, it was the path that we should have taken.

We were born in prisons, and we are all destined to die in prisons. We have lived our lives in one for so long that we no longer believe there to be an outside world.
9584 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / In Memphis, with...
Offline
Posted 2/13/08
^ It is naive to think the would wouldn't devolve without a proper order. If we should have taken the path of Anarchy, we don't certainly know what would it be. Your assumptions are merely that. On the other hand, we live in another time where society is a fundamental part of the entire planet -nation-wise.-

Imagine how much more those percentages would raise, if we lived in an Anarchy-based world. You think everything would work just fine? Probably? That 1% is just an estimate, people won't live happily without problems, because we are all humans, humans are greed. Anarchy wouldn't last more than a month.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.