The title you chose for this topic was "Fuck Anarchy." See thread: http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/546694-competing-agencies-retaliatory-force.html Oh, and next time you want to start a discussion, you should think of a better title.
I support anarchy, though admittedly I'm a relatively new convert from minarchism. The title and contents of the OP is pretty weak, I might add. You'd better bring your proverbial guns loaded if you really want to engage in discourse about this subject though. If this turns out to be another BluntAssassin type of argument, I think I'll have to cut myself rather than suffer a lack of intelligence to that extent yet again. As Elliot pointed out, there's already a recent discussion about anarchy as it relates to law, justice, crime, courts, and security.
Anarchism, yes. Maybe you should actually read up about it before you make a lame topic like this. Google it. That will give you far more information than I ever could. "Anarchism has a broad back" and "endures anything"; it's a very broad philosophy . There's anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-socialists, anarcho-primitivists, whatever. There are countless resources available to you to educate yourself about this very wide school of thought; from an incredible amount of different perspectives.
Thanks for your "support". I didn't realize there was already a thread, so I probably shouldn't post on this one, but... I know what anarchy is actually, because I've been to the 10th grade. I wasn't really making an argument, so it can't be considered "weak" if it's non-existent. I was curious if anyone actually supported Anarchy, because it would blow my mind if anyone would be that stupid. But, I'll just go to the other thread, and see what they have to say.
From this I gather you probably don't know what anarchy is, then. I never said your argument was weak. I said the title and contents of your original post were weak. What's stupid about supporting anarchy? I'm curious to know how you can label someone stupid for supporting something prior to hearing any argument or reasoning about said person's support of said thing. How is that logical?
I have a sinking feeling that my initial fears are coming true. BluntAssassin 2.0. Excuse me while I go get the scissors...
Anarchy is simply the lack of state, it is not the lack of order or governance. Instead of a monolithic state with a monopoly on the use of force, the completely free market would provide the services once provided by the government in a more efficient manner. We are already governed by the laws of economics, which the state distorts. I can think of very few uses for the state, and the potential of the state to grow without bound mitigates those few uses.
i dont think u know what anarchy is its one of those things that sounds great in consept like communism but it rly wont work
.. So in the tenth grade (which, I imagine, this was last week for you), you learned that anarchy is a philosophy which... no one adheres to? I mean, here you express bewilderment that people actually believe in anarchism. So you weren't aware that there are anarchists who subscribe to the beliefs of Anarchy? What? Leo Tolstoy, Noam Chomsky and Murray Rothbard are probably some of the best known anarchists, and they prove yet again that anarchism has a very broad back - these fellows possess incredibility different views but they are all anarchists the same.
Actually, i don't think you know what either anarchy or communism are. At least explain why the present system would be preferential.
Anarchy is not a form of government. Anarchy can not be "installed." Anarchy is not brought about by removing the old system and replacing it with a new system. Anarchy simply means "without rule" or "without authority." It is a lifestyle choice made by intelligent people to remove the influence of the state from their lives as much as comfortably possible. That means different things for different people, but all of these different people can be considered anarchists. I don't really see anything stupid about people making their own decisions, which is just about what anarchy boils down to. Just because the government currently pretends to make all of your decisions about diet, self defense, medicine, education, transportation, etc. for you doesn't mean that it is better that way or that everyone wants it that way. It is actually worse for us, because the government teaches people like yourself to come out here and spit on everyone for being "stupid" even more than the government already does. Just rip away the confidence of the people to think and act for themselves, why don't you?
ahhh but i do know both true anarchy means we wouldnt have money so we would go into mcdonalds and argue over what to trade the guy for a bigmac we wouldnt have police fire department or health care im sorry but i like knowing if my house is on fire that i can call 911 and have help i could go on but i dont think i have to and as for communism in theroy its great if we were all robots with no greed everyone working and making the same amount of money a goverment were class means nothing were a docter and a janitor are treated the same were jsut becuz ur rich dosnt mean ur better than every one and when i say communism i mean true pure communism but we are human we are flawd it wont work in thery and thought they both sound great but no they wont work and i do know what im talking about
The concept of money is not a concept spawned of the state. Money is a concept of convenience which exists regardless of the state. People need to trade for goods and services. In order to make this more efficient for everyone, a common commodity (like gold or silver); which maintains widely accepted value across the market, is easily divisible, and easy to store and carry; is adopted instead of relying purely on barter. If I'm a fisherman and I need to buy bread for my family, instead of lugging a bunch of dead fish around to trade the bread maker for bread, I sell my fish for a common commodity, and then use that common commodity to buy bread. In a libertarian or anarchist society, competing currencies would arise, likely backed by some kind of standard, such as gold. The state isn't necessary for money, quite the contrary, the state systematically destroys currency. Why wouldn't you have security or fire protection or health care? Ask yourself, are security, fire protection and health care in high demand from nearly all (if not all) human beings? The answer is yes. The value of these things to each individual may be subjective, but most people in today's world still value them to one degree or another. Therefore there is demand. When there is demand for a good or service, there is profit to be made from satisfying that demand. When there is profit to be made from satisfying a demand, business is born. When business is born to satisfy that demand, the goods and services in demand are delivered. This is basic economics. Do you think the state invented security, fire protection or health care? I wonder what the American colonies did prior to the ratification of the Constitution then. You realize that security, fire protection and health care are all services delivered by and made possible by human beings, correct? The state is unnecessary, and in fact does a relatively poor job at delivering any of these services.
The state did not always have a monopoly on currency. There is such a commodity out there which is perfect for representing value because it is rare and measurable. The state, on the other hand, fears solid currency because with it they cannot finance war. And we all know that war is the health of the state. As probably discussed in this thread, private security and fear of vigilantism would protect us from criminals just as well as, if not better than, the state. It would cost us considerably less if you take into account the absence of a corrupt prison/enforcement industry built up around the state. Same goes for a fire department, if there is a demand for it it will arise. Health care is a good that is already provided by the private sector more efficiently and more effectively than the state. Only difference is in a voluntary society the corporations wouldn't be able to exploit the consumers as they do in our current mixed market. I am personally opposed to anarchism, but I think 'we the people' can take care of eachother better than the disconnected elites in DC.
im gonna keep this short without the state no one would regulate whats worth what without goverment run police and firedepartments it means u would have to trade for there services meaning when the fire department got done putting out the fire ud have to give them some sort of payment or for the police to catch the guy who shot u