Anarchy could never work.

Post Reply New Topic

I think a very weak government is necessary but that government should not be ruled by one person or the rich.
The government should be a democracy run by the people.

I think that human nature does exist but some of it was created by capitalist society.

I am certain that human emotions can change a person and make them do something that they will regret latter.
This is the main reason why we need a week government.

Where I'll step backward a bit - capitalism, being that it was built to allow for problems without the problems breaking the system, may amplify the problems a bit because it treats them as normal rather than as a sickness.

Yes as long as the system remains stable who cares how it effects the citizens....or the rest of the world, just so long as the system continues. Maybe some problems should be treated as problems rather than things to be disregarded on account of.....it has to be this way for the system to remain in place.


That said I don't think the anger with the outlook you have is so much with that outlook, its where it leads in terms of conclusions - ie. like suggesting that communism would and should work if it had ever been tried. If you want to criticize the way it was instituted in places like Russia or Leon Trotsky's gestapo-like comments about useful idiots; great. Many nations tried it in the 20th century, so far China, Cuba, Eritrea, and maybe a couple others are left; China of course doing well because of its penchant for hypocrisy (then again its hypocrisy toward corporate person hood did supposedly save 300 million people from starvation per Charles Krauthamer's sources).

Not sure what you're getting at there......I do not like capitalism, I think communism is a better idea......though as of lately I think I may modify it to anarcho-communism because that seems to describe just the sort of thing I would support. The thing is communism in soviet russia was flawed before it was even put in place the government at the time had no real intention of creating an actual communist society. So how can it possibly be used as an example of how communism would look?

Now, my take on capitalism in the future - it will modify and wear thinner. I think we will ultimately have a capitalism that fades into something pretty close to what people are calling a social libertarian variant of socialism, anarcho-communism, libertarian socialism, etc. as innovation gets so good that AI and advanced production techniques essentially takes our jobs. The mistake I see people making constantly though is this notion that capitalism is this deliberately malevolent, suppressive regime headed by sociopaths who want nothing more than to control and that the only way to bring about something like a technocracy and libertarian socialism is the overthrow of, IMHO, their version of the Illuminati, Rothschilds, Bridgebuilders, Mason's - ie. that notion seems to be the Celestine Prophecy of the left.
That notion, IMHO, could tank the whole peaceful and gradual transition TOWARD what everyone wants; as innovation changes, as old ways stop being practical, as the marketplace of ideas actually opens up. If its done in steps as society is ready - its done in a way that will hold, not in a way that will self destruct. I think Russia and Communism is exactly why revolution, trying to push something ahead of its time or ahead of its means, is dangerous; because its essentially a huge battle-royal not with greed, not with people, its a epic battle with reality. Fighting reality is like fighting a cement wall, it doesn't matter how much heart you have, you won't win. When people try to say that capitalism is the only thing stopping us from having that world, IMHO, its a big straw boogeyman and horribly disingenuous, especially as the elephant of Southern Europe and the US's debts has its snout resting on their shoulder.

Yeah of course capitalism will have to fade into something a little more socialist, and maybe anarcho-communist because just like was predicted a capitalist system would eventually collapse in on itself.




And what we're still at disagreement is what set that society up. I think we'd both agree that it started in a condition of scarcity, I think we'd both agree that it will change, but I can't agree that our anti-discipline, anti-adulthood, and anti-responsibility culture came from capitalism. The loss of those things didn't make us softer or gentler, it just made us more vile and without discipline we've become a lot less human. Why would discipline make us more human? Because with discipline we hammer the animal down rather than have it all hang out. When a society starts centering itself around having it all hang out you really have people who are worn out, ragged, tired of trying to mask themselves as 'human' who just want to go back to the jungle. To ever go forward we can't have that and we can't have a 'What's in it for me?' culture. That culture doesn't come from capitalism as much as it comes from a society too afraid to tell people what they need to stand for or to even give a secular mission statement on why personal responsibility and civics matter.

Mental illness would be if someone has a mental disorder that impairs their functioning and causes them discomfort......murdering people does not necessarily indicate such a thing.

To say that means you're still missing a lot:

Why are sports so big? Why is the pecking order in school the way it is? What exactly is pettiness at the fundamental level? Why is a guy or girl living at home with his/her parents or even just renting somewhere considered a loser? Why is disability still disgraceful almost anywhere? Why is geekiness disgraceful for that matter? Why do both genders treat each member of the opposite gender so disparately that two people can be the same person inside, say the same exact things, and get radically different outcomes? Why for that matter do men need to be violent to have made their right of passage or women need to be sanctimoniously corrupt to have passed theirs? The 'meh, people are stupid' 'Meh, people are societally conditioned to be pigs' 'Meh, people just are that way' doesn't sweep these things under the carpet. With the source of those things still intact any form of anarchy will cannibalize itslef into despotism or, a reamalgamation of capitalism.

The desire to murder come from mental illness.

Antisocial personality disorder actually causes comfort for some people afflicted by it. That's why it's so hard to detect, and why so many CEO's happen to have it. I'd imagine the Antisocial personalities would be the ones most prone to murder - most people understand the implications and the finality of acting on their inner fantasies.

I still can't comprehend that you'd still say this after looking at the NT world for more than 20 years and claim that they aren't doing so because of a magic infalsifiable link to capitalism, additionally claiming that people could simply be better to each other if they would, but they won't, and the system is to blame for their apathy, malice, and whatever else.

Driving home from work I had something else hit me as well. If I ended up shagging a guy's girlfriend and he wanted to beat me senseless over it (regardless of whether he could succeed), is my misdemeanor and his retribution because of capitalism? If I go out to a bar with a really attractive girl tonight and a bunch of guys start trying to f' with me because I don't look strong enough to them to be with her, is that capitalism? If I get drunk at that bar, wreck my car in a DUI and kill a whole bunch of people - was it capitalism? When people want to blame capitalism for the majority of the worlds ills, for driving human behavior I keep noticing how factors like sex drive, reproductive scarcity, self-protection, pride, desire for respect, etc. get ignored or shoved off as isolated issues rather than prime directives; which IMO in a socialist/communist/TZM model has to be done because to believe that capitalism is modeled to account for traits that humans can't extinguish, which can't be extinguished because of inequity inherent in nature and existence itself, would mean that the whole a-priori basis of that argument is simply gone.

I agree with you sweetleaf. The structure of society, in a broad sense, and the conditionning makes a lot in human behavior. Nevertheless, I believe there is a basic pre-programming of human beings, just like there is a physical genotype-phenotype, there is a mental genotype-phenotype. For example, the need to have shelter makes people build houses. There are things to take into account that limit the possibilities of what we can do with human beings. But for sure, the current organization of society is sick.

techstepgenr8tion, it's true that we call the current system capitalism and so the term is used as a global critique of the organization of society. In fact, it describes quite clearly what is going on, i.e. that private property has no limit and leads to negative behaviors. But a closer look at the word capitalism shows that, in fact, the problem is not property in itself, but the absence of limit. So if we limit property, we could have a better system. We may say that capitalism, in the way it is developped now, is a problem for us, but that capitalism as a way of accepting private property in economics, is ok.

Personally, I do not believe in anarchy because it states that there can be an absence of power between individuals whereas I think it is impossible. When we use money, we can count power, we can regulate it. If we have no money and no government, we just hide the power structure, but it's still there. Some people are more strong mentally, so we get a hierarchy even in anarchy. I think that the fact that it is hidden makes it somewhat worse than it can look like.

Let me rephrase that. Anyone who desires to murder another person has some sort of mental illness.
Murder is not a natural human desire. By mental illness I don't mean aspergers,depression or PTSD.
I mean sociopathy,narcissism and some times schizophrenia. This does not mean that all mentally ill people will murder.

Actually the Holocaust was started by sociopaths which would qualify as mental illness.
Most of Germany was not mentally ill but they were scared,manipulated and brainwashed by sociopaths.
Many of them didn't even know about the Holocaust just like many people know nothing about the genocide of the Palestinians.
Most American politicians probably have an unknown mental illness.

I will admit to using a poor choice of words and I assume that I may be considered mentally ill.
To murder some one out of pure hatred and pleasure would be considered a mental illness.
Self-defense,war,defending another person does not exactly fit the definition of cold blooded murder.

Anti-social personality Disorder could be considered a mental illness.....but psychopathy and sociopath are more vauge terms that don't necessarily apply to that disorder. For instance I have a family member I would certainly describe as a psychopath and he likes it, I think he'd probably rather die then be any other way this is not a family member I like...then I have a cousin who I am not sure has anti-social personality disorder but certainly has some symtoms of it and it probably does cause him some distress because its gotten him arrested, in fights and all kinds of stuff but also saved my life when I was about 10 because I got caught in a river current.

anarchy is the same as satanism, in that it is completely silly to even attempt to address its functionality, morality, etcetera. because IT DOES NOT EXIST, in the form of its technical definition. nor is there anyone who believes in it in that way. With the exception of teenagers, but again in that case they not giving any thought into the actual idea, therefore they are no more than using the word, and the severity of it reputation, to make a statement.

I dont know where to start with everything that doesnt make sense about anarchy. i do personally believe radical changes to 'the government' would theoretically be beneficial. however, we live in reality. We have to evaluate what sorts of alterations CAN be made to society, and have game plan as to how to accomplish this. Even if you think radical changes should be made, how are you going to do it? Either you can shout from a soapbox, which will get you nowhere, or you can commit a terrorist act, which would get more attention temporarily, but would not leaving a lasting impression, in the way you wish it to.

some form of government will emerge in any situation. i have more ideas running through my mind but i cant bring myself to address them, there is just no reason to even think about anarchy. It is an oxymoron, to vastly understate how nonsensical it is.

I don't see it. We're in a world where hours, dress, employers, etc. are more friendly and flexible than they ever have been.

They should do their research into what's going on, what's happening to the money supply, and I get the impression that we'll have tons of new politicians bringing great ideas to the table from that generation.

The bubbles come from both inflation of fiat currency and government playing social policy through tampering with laws.

If the government wants to give handouts they need to give handouts (like in the case of the redlining problems that forced banks to agree to bad loans, which threw all standards out the window for everyone, after which Fannie and Freddie were put to the task - by a corrupt congress, of taking these loans).

Its there but at the same time who let the punks set the tempo? As I can remember teachers can't do anything about bullies; it may be getting resolved now albeit in a rather strange and probably worse manner of solution - calling the police to drag the bully or misbehaving kid out.

Except that there's barely anything I can find here to agree with.

So the clash of the ideas of capitalism and communism or what they mean draws people to a place of unthinking numbness.

Rigid attitudes to keep people from falling into the rigid? I need help with this one.

rather than considering limits on property, since this would only perpetuate current attitudes, why not consider an entirely different approach to the notion of property generally, such as proposed by proudhon and his logical trajectory of property is theft, property is liberty, property is impossible.

I didn't mean it as a blanket statement - I've also known a few people who have it. Two of my bosses were either malignant narcissists, or antisocial. It's tricky making a distinction between the two. My step-father was a narcissist - but he had a number of tendencies that would meet the DSM-IV for antisocial.

I try to avoid the terms "psychopath" and "psychopathy" because they're so nebulous.... Antisocial works better. I still have to say that I don't believe most people would be capable of murder without conditioning (such as what the military provides) or some personality disorder such as the aforementioned. I'd be hesitant to think most people capable of killing an animal granted the full implications of that act. I'm also speaking partially from personal experience, though, so it's hard to say for sure.

anarchy is the same as satanism, in that it is completely silly to even attempt to address its functionality, morality, etcetera. because IT DOES NOT EXIST, in the form of its technical definition. nor is there anyone who believes in it in that way. With the exception of teenagers, but again in that case they not giving any thought into the actual idea, therefore they are no more than using the word, and the severity of it reputation, to make a statement.

I dont know where to start with everything that doesnt make sense about anarchy. i do personally believe radical changes to 'the government' would theoretically be beneficial. however, we live in reality. We have to evaluate what sorts of alterations CAN be made to society, and have game plan as to how to accomplish this. Even if you think radical changes should be made, how are you going to do it? Either you can shout from a soapbox, which will get you nowhere, or you can commit a terrorist act, which would get more attention temporarily, but would not leaving a lasting impression, in the way you wish it to.

some form of government will emerge in any situation. i have more ideas running through my mind but i cant bring myself to address them, there is just no reason to even think about anarchy. It is an oxymoron, to vastly understate how nonsensical it is.