TheMarkz0ne

A case for no government, anarchy misconception

Recommended Posts

Take Ted Bundy. He didn't murder because he needed money, or because of a grudge, but because he liked it. I would bet, that there are a lot of people who would want to murder somebody, but don't because of the fear they end up in prison. when that fear is gone, what's stopping them?

 

I think you're trusting the good of man to much. Religion isn't the reason so many people were murdered, but because some very smart people misused religion to get what they wanted. Same as with governments. They aren't bad, but there's often to less watch on what the higher ups in that system are doing. THAT is what needs to change, not to say: let's trow this system away

 

Humans are just evil when there are no penalties on what they are doing. Same in an anarchy, as in a government 

We aren't evil. I can't believe you think you need a government leash to deem you good. Who governs the government? Exactly.

> Ignores everything I wrote for the second time.

 

> Nitpicks a semantic issue which is more or less irrelevant.

 

> Assumes that spirituality and religion are mutually exclusive. 

 

> Assumes people won't fight over spiritual ideologies.

 

> Assumes that spiritual ideas can't evolve into a religion.

 

 

Cool.

Want to play that game. Scientism is the religion of a dead unconscious being. Meaning no philosophy aka logical "positivism"

 

What science ACTUALLY is

 

A methodology of rational unbias inquiry.

 

 

Hypothesis 

experimentation 

analyzing 

You then theorize 

try to back up your theory more and more and try to reach a conclusion whether in the hypothesis's favor or not.

 

Science requires that "being human" part. Not being a zombie with no life. Scientism is the political religion of the measurement being your god. Ontology means nothing to scientism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anarchy would result in the strong destroying the weak. The streets would run red with blood as anyone with a petty feud ran out and killed the person that annoyed them. Women would revert to being mere property, slaves, and breeding stock. No, I would rather have government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to play that game. Scientism is the religion of a dead unconscious being. Meaning no philosophy aka logical "positivism"

 

What science ACTUALLY is

 

A methodology of rational unbias inquiry.

 

 

Hypothesis 

experimentation 

analyzing 

You then theorize 

try to back up your theory more and more and try to reach a conclusion whether in the hypothesis's favor or not.

 

Science requires that "being human" part. Not being a zombie with no life. Scientism is the political religion of the measurement being your god. Ontology means nothing to scientism.

 

 

How is this relevant to anything I wrote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@TheMarkz0ne, In many ways... just thinking about some of the problems you listed. Wouldn't an alternate method be a single central goverment for the entire world. That would be very unprobable and hard to obtain. But it would provide the world with a law enforcment authority as well as get rid of many f the issuses such as war, religion, land,resources etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

We aren't evil. I can't believe you think you need a government leash to deem you good. Who governs the government? Exactly.

Want to play that game. Scientism is the religion of a dead unconscious being. Meaning no philosophy aka logical "positivism"

 

What science ACTUALLY is

 

A methodology of rational unbias inquiry.

 

 

Hypothesis 

experimentation 

analyzing 

You then theorize 

try to back up your theory more and more and try to reach a conclusion whether in the hypothesis's favor or not.

 

Science requires that "being human" part. Not being a zombie with no life. Scientism is the political religion of the measurement being your god. Ontology means nothing to scientism.

True spiritual teachings are about the spark of life. Not following a religious set of rules that impose on someone's freedom and liberation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't evil. I can't believe you think you need a government leash to deem you good. Who governs the government? Exactly.

For 90% of the people, a goverment won't be needed for them to guide them. It's the 10% that starts to cause murders, rob things etc. 

 

Who governs the government? We do! By selecting who rules us. I admit, as it stands now, the system is broken and needs to be fixed. maybe by giving the people more to say about who rules them, I dunno. But just abandoning this to get a anarchy, doesn't seem good, because those 10% will eventually drag down other people in world of crime, because there is no punishment for their actions 

 

I think we differ this much, because you assume humans are from nature good, and I think humans are from nature evil. We're not gonna get an agreement here, I think

Edited by ponytheorist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this relevant to anything I wrote?

well it's obvious you don't know what soul means. You obviously also hate the soul and its concepts, you hiss at the word spirit because of what religion defamed it into.

Edited by TheMarkz0ne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well it's obvious you don't know what soul means. You obviously also hate the soul and its concepts, you hiss at the word spirit because of what religion defamed it into.

 

What the Hell are you talking about and why is any of this relevant to anything I've brought up? I don't think I've even mentioned the word "soul" once in any of my posts.

 

Are you seriously trying to dismiss all of my points because you assume that I'm not spiritual enough? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the Hell are you talking about and why is any of this relevant to anything I've brought up? I don't think I've even mentioned the word "soul" once in any of my posts.

 

Are you seriously trying to dismiss all of my points because you assume that I'm not spiritual enough? 

No it's not that. You are being ignorant of religion and what religion means. You don't lump the soul and religion together because they're not the same. Your post come across as if metaphysics are evil, when metaphysics is actually philosophical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, Scientism is about the Scientific Method. I don't know where you heard it was about a dead person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, Scientism is about the Scientific Method. I don't know where you heard it was about a dead person.

scientism worships the finite and petty 5 human senses and assume that human logic is above the cosmos, that equates to nihilism. No scientism is NOT science. True scientists would be insulted by being associated with scientism. Scientism is robot and zombie culture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not that. You are being ignorant of religion and what religion means. You don't lump the soul and religion together because they're not the same. Your post come across as if metaphysics are evil, when metaphysics is actually philosophical.

 

I've never even mentioned the word "soul", how could I lump it together with anything? I just said that spirituality and religion are not mutually exclusive, and that spiritual ideologies can contradict one another and result in violence just like any other ideology. 

And I don't believe in good and evil, so I'm not even sure where you're getting any of this from.

 

I just love the fact that you get upset and almost rage quit because we're not taking your anarchism seriously enough and engaging in it properly (which is pretty hard to do when it's so idealistic and naive), but then when I offer some discourse (which I did originally after poking a bit of fun, but you ignored that), you completely ignore me again and use a boarder line ad hominem attack for not being spiritual, and then put a whole load of words in my mouth which I never even insinuated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never even mentioned the word "soul", how could I lump it together with anything? I just said that spirituality and religion are not mutually exclusive, and that spiritual ideologies can contradict one another and result in violence just like any other ideology. 

And I don't believe in good and evil, so I'm not even sure where you're getting any of this from.

 

I just love the fact that you get upset and almost rage quit because we're not taking your anarchism seriously enough and engaging in it properly (which is pretty hard to do when it's so idealistic and naive), but then when I offer some discourse (which I did originally after poking a bit of fun, but you ignored that), you completely ignore me again and use a boarder line ad hominem attack for not being spiritual, and then put a whole load of words in my mouth which I never even insinuated. 

Well you're too busy attacking anarchists who have morals and ethics when you stated you don't believe in good an evil. So in your case, kill or be killed and you can hurt anyone you want if you don't acknowledge good nature and an evil nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you're too busy attacking anarchists who have morals and ethics when you stated you don't believe in good an evil. So in your case, kill or be killed and you can hurt anyone you want if you don't acknowledge good nature and an evil nature.

 

 

 

> Challenges ideas

 

"stop attacking me!" D:

 

 

Dear lord, I don't have to believe in good and evil to not go around hurting people. I have this thing called "ethics" and "empathy" which go a long way when it comes to you know, not going around on a killing rampage.  

 

You whine about religion, but this is literally the exact same argument religious people use against secular people and atheists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

> Challenges ideas

 

"stop attacking me!" D:

 

 

Dear lord, I don't have to believe in good and evil to not go around hurting people. I have this thing called "ethics" and "empathy" which go a long way when it comes to you know, not going around on a killing rampage.  

 

You whine about religion, but this is literally the exact same argument religious people use against secular people and atheists. 

I don't endorse nihilism or theism sorry. True atheism is nihilism, which is why there aren't many real atheists. Also how can you have ethics? I understand we all have empathy, but if you deny good or evil, you have subjective ethics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't endorse nihilism or theism sorry. True atheism is nihilism, which is why there aren't many real atheists. Also how can you have ethics? I understand we all have empathy, but if you deny good or evil, you have subjective ethics.

 

Oh dear lord...

I'm sorry, but I genuinely cannot take you seriously any more. Are you a troll? :')

 

"real atheists" "True atheism is nihilism" A'ight. Cool.

You have no idea what atheism is, do you? 

 

Also, you do realise that good and evil are entirely subjective, right? You do understand this? It depends entirely on where you come from, your upbringing, your religion or lack thereof, your nature, your mental stability... I could go on. What's evil to one person isn't to another. Do I REALLY need to give you examples of this? I'd honestly rather not.

Edited by Hansel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(META POST AHEAD)

 

I'm still trying to figure this out: when did the Debate Pit become General Discussion? First the debate on Michelle Obama's school lunch initiative and now a debate over anarchism?!

 

From the pinned post in that subforum:

 

The Debate Pit subforum is the staff's solution to intense debate topics chocking out the General Discussion section. In their own section, moral, religious, political, what have you-esque topics can be better contained from a moderation stand point, and are easier to identify by members looking to debate something. To keep the section away from newer members (for a host of various reasons), only members with forty posts or more can view or participate in this section.

My question is this: since this is a debate about the merits of anarchism, a political ideology, shouldn't this thread be moved to the Debate Pit?

Edited by skbl17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

Oh dear lord...

I'm sorry, but I genuinely cannot take you seriously any more. Are you a troll? :')

 

"real atheists" "True atheism is nihilism" A'ight. Cool.

You have no idea what atheism is, do you? 

 

Also, you do realise that good and evil are entirely subjective, right? You do understand this? It depends entirely on where you come from, your upbringing, your religion or lack thereof, your nature, your mental stability... I could go on. What's evil to one person isn't to another. Do I REALLY need to give you examples of this? I'd honestly rather not.

So murder is subjective? Thus blind killing and torture is fine by your definition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So murder is subjective? Thus blind killing and torture is fine by your definition?

 

Did I say that? When did I say that? Point to where I said that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

 

No, of course I don't think murder is fine. I don't think it's fine because I think it's unethical and I have empathy. I base my code of ethics off my empathy. That's a different thing all together from good and evil. You can have ethics without believing in the notion of good and evil. I'm a living example of that, and there's plenty others like me.

Some people kill even though they think it's unethical. Some people, who might even believe in good and evil, kill regardless. (again, do I really need to point out examples of this?) 

You don't need to be spiritual or religious to have ethics, and people can have ethics and believe in good and evil whilst also not being spiritual or religious. Spirituality, ethics, and good/evil are not mutually inclusive, and they're all subjective. 

 

This is why most people naturally gravitate towards forming societies and governments, so that large groups of ideally like-minded people with similar ethics and ideas can create a code of conduct which more-or-less follows what the majority of people feel is right and wrong. It'll never be perfect, because everyone's personal ethics are going to differ (hence why they're subjective, but a group of people living on the same land are likely going to be able to agree on core issues, such as unprovoked murder for example), but the benefits of a society that more or less works in favour of the people far outweigh the disadvantages. This is why the human race has excelled so much.

Anarchy will never work, not just because it will create more violence (as there's no code of conduct to follow, and due to the subjective nature of ethics and good/evil, everyone will simply behave however they feel is right to them or simply whatever benefits them because there's no legal consequence), but also because it's human nature to form societies and to live together, meaning that anarchy will not last, and societies and hierarchy will naturally form. 

 

Saying that, this is also the reason why "one global civilisation ruled under one government" is unlikely to work. A group of people living on one side of the planet are likely going to want to follow a somewhat different code of conduct to the people living on the other side of the planet. This is because, as I said, ethics and morals and level of empathy and such are influenced by your nature as well as your surroundings. This is evident from the fact that there's literally hundreds, maybe thousands of different societies instead of just one.

Edited by Hansel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's talk about what would happen if anarchy came about:

Murder, looting, endless death and small wars. Someone would need to keep the people in check, and that would lead to an authoritarian government. If you think past your own fantasy of "freedom", you could see that anarchy isn't just stupid, it's harmful. Sure, government needs changing, but getting rid of it altogether is a terrible, terrible idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you see, that's the problem. Not everybody is an anarchist. So a lot of people don't live by those rules. And even though people know they shouldn't kill, it still happens! People are being killed on the streets while we're speaking.

 

And don't pin this on the goverment that they 'brainwash' their people. Nobody is brainwashing me. I don't even know how they are supposed to do that with the internet giving us all the info we need 

I wish I could brohoof you twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

Governments provide at the bare minimum the following three necessary services:

 

1.) They remove murderers, rapist, muggers and other criminals from society so they cannot continue to harm innocent people.  There is no disputing that these types of criminals exist and need to be dealt with, as these crimes occur on a daily basis and these criminals must be apprehended by police on a daily basis.

 

2.) They prevent other governments from invading and annexing what would otherwise be poorly defended territory.

 

3.) They prevent gang leaders, warlords and the like from assembling their own personal armies of thugs and using force to compel the rest of society to serve them.

 

The trick has always been to prevent any institution with enough power to contain the three aforementioned problems from immediately turning around and using that selfsame power against the population.  Hence we have constitutionally limited government, democratic elections, civilian rights, separation of powers, a court system and a whole host of other controls to prevent this.  It is far from perfect as these controls seem to barely work most of the time, but it is still vastly preferable to living under a local warlord who is subject to no such controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

If your in the USA you don't have much of a voting system. Unless you count the broken one we do have.  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's already a real-world example of anarchy that spans the globe and that would be the black market. You can't get more de-regulated than the black market. Anything goes over there and I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees that it's a very dangerous place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.