ZOMBIE FORUMS

There are simply too many assholes in the world (or maybe it's just in America) for anarchy to work. I've saw 15 year old take a coke out of an open Coke machine that the guy was restocking and left open to get sodas, when I stopped him he just put it back and seemed to believe that it wasn't wrong.

Humanity may be ready for anarchy someday, but I honestly don't think that that time is today. I mean if the UN can't stop governments from going at it how is no one going to stop everyone.

And I was the three-sport athlete. That was just a quote from Something Positive, not a summary of my time at school. kthxbai.

Thanks for clearing that up, OE! I was confused about that quote.

I can't be trusted to post on this, for personal reasons. suffice it to say, Im not a big fan of an opressive goverment, for you see man is not infallible. We are easily corrupted by power, our egos are quite large, and every goverment needs a figure head. Rember, the temporary army general for the revolution today, the iron fisted tyrant of tomorrow.

...sounds kewl. Care to explain what you think the differences now are that make this (highly amusing) generalization untrue?

Or, you could just go on making unsupported claims. Whatever works for you.

You mean besides the fact that in most countries you don't take power by killing the person you're replacing? Or the fact that if I can kick your ass it means nothing in how likely I am to succeed? When people stop being a wuss at school they might go somewhere... Somewhere you obviously won't be.

-Lifyre

Well, first off, remember that we're talking about anarchy with all of this. So I'm still not hearing any reason why, in fact, the fact that you can kick someone's ass doesn't gurantee my sucess. Sounds to me like, if you're a great family provider, lots of spare food, all of that, but someone is stronger and there's no law preventing it, they can come in and take whatever they like and just beat the living shit out of whoever says otherwise. So

actually weighs in directly on my chances of sucess. Brute strength and animal cunning, which you and Ollie so contemptuously dismiss, provide two direct benifits: the ability to take what the possessor desires from other, productive individuals, and the ability to produce and keep the fruits of labor safe from other accquisitive individuals. That said, I'll repeat my observation that as yet neither you nor Ollie have given any substantiated reason that anarchy doesn't mean rule of force, brutal state of nature, etc. etc. etc. It's all assertations right now.

As to

I should point out a few key things...starting with the reminder that, in fact, this is done fairly regularly. So even if you're going to argue "well, things are more civilized these days, so an anarchy would be more civilized as well," you're sort of assuming things based on a nice comfortable first-world sense of government. How exactly do you think power changes hands in South and Central American nations? Not always with a bloodbath, no. But frequently? You bet your ass. Even when modern-day power struggles aren't resolved with "kill the opposition," they still almost universally involve superior military force backing the victor. So, once again, I'm seeing the basic human trend as being toward resolving things by violence and intimidation.

So what's the significence of all this? Well, I posed the topic, so I'm doing my best to stay neutral on the position, but I do feel it important to weigh everything I've just said in as a refutation of the idea that Ollie and Lifyre are both throwing out sarcastically, that is to say the concept that an anarchy these days would not devolve into a world based on "brute strength and animal cunning." And, until they stop insinuating that everyone who disagrees is a wuss who got his head flushed in highschool and start trying to substantiate the position with some analysis of human behavior, I'd say the refutation stands and we must assume anarchy to mean a brutal, violent state of nature where the strongest and most violent are the most able to survive.

Point is though, they're right. Take this: someone who is smart will succeed where someone who is strong will not. In today's society, someone who is strong will not succeed, as some 90 pound weakling with a colt .45 will drill him from 20 yards off while he runs at him, ready to tear him limb from limb.

Thus, if we were to become an anarchist society today, careful planning, charisma, and most of all intelligence would determine who would be up top. Those with brute strength, or even just skill with weapons, have to contend with those charismatic enough to attract followers, or smart enough to set it safegaurds against brute strength attacks.

THAT is their reasoning, and if you can't see it I can see where there wuss comments are coming from.

-MiB

It should be noted that charisma does not always mean positive reinforcement and effective bargaining skills. It can also mean that someone has so commanding and fearful a presence that it scares people into submission and frightens any would-be assassins out of their wits.

Though if you were as l33t as Vash the Stampede I daresay you wouldn't need much in the way of brains or charisma. Though until someone like that emerges i daresay Mibbers is right that brawn and simple skill are going to take the back seat to those who know how to manipulate others.

Or you could just put yourself in an indispensible position, the only supplier of ammunition in an area for example, sure people could dominate you but you have power over them due to your resources, thus they leave you well enough alone.

-MiB

Edit: Heee! Rev said "daresay," thats so cool. Daresay! Daresay!

'Giddy' is not a becoming state for you MiB. :P

Daresay isn't nearly as cool as mayhaps.

My dad and I were discussing the idea of living in a fairly lawless area in the old west era, and he pointed out, to my agreement that being a skilled gunsmith would be the safest thing to do. Both the criminals and the law (mostly a continuum rather than a dichotomy) would want the guy who worked on their favorie violent toys alive, and would take great offense to someone doing anything to him.

I go with anarchy on the basis that I could not stand an oppressive government. I would rebel and try to overthrow it.

I would take anarchy. Then I would own you all because I'm so smart.


Anyway, making yourself the only supplier of something basically gives you power over anyone who needs what you have, even if they "technically" control you.


I think that a Utopia is possible if a bunch of dreamers got together, planned stuff up, recruited some more people and took over the world. If the world had a central government, run by some dictator how actually is trying to make humanity better off, then we could have the entire world in a utopia in a mere decade or so. (Now recruiting- contact anytime)

The question is, what do we as human beings value more - our freedom or our pleasure? Would even the most benevolent dictatorship be worth giving up our liberty?

Ah, but freedom and pleasure are not independent concepts for anyone that values the former. For such a person, freedom will act to bring pleasure, while lack of freedom will act to prevent it.

P-M

I realize this, Pyro. Perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly. To clarify, what I'm basically asking is this: Suppose that you have the choice of surrendering all your freedom to a benevolent dictator who will rule autocratically, but who you (somehow) know will bring the standard of living for everyone up to nigh-unimaginable levels. Would you? Is a society that is a Utopia aside from total lack of freedom preferable to our current society?

It's Dystopia Time!!!




Year o' da Munkie.

Anarchy is just silly. So a nucelar war or a deadly virus happens, society is anally raped. I, you, that guy, and most people probably stick with our families, or at least with friends, for mutual protection, increased firepower, companionship, shared skills, whatever. Exceptions, of course, but mostly its small groups right froim the word go. Then families live in communities and open trade agreements with each other, then make peace with other families to form a rough coalition or declare war on biker gangs or other coalitions...15 steps later, you have states and leaders of said states. Government and rulership is natural progression.

And the scenario could never happen. If I could give up freedom, but still have my freedom and liberties observed, then Id still be free by my way of reckoning even if I was in a dictatorship. There is no way such a scenario could ever occur in a human system, so we gotta leave that power in the hands of the people.

XD Anarchy as a viable future for the human race.

Its step 0. As mibbers pointed out, those who are charasmatic build a following. Thats dictatorship, Holmes. Thats the government you start Civilation with. Now set your science rate to 70%, and discover the wheel.

And totally pick the Germans. The panzer tank ownz in the late industrial age. Though the American F-15 is pretty sweet too.

Anarchy may well be a viable future for the human race. Im not convinced its likely, but the asteroid could always fall, nuclear war could happen, the modern anti-biotic resistant disease might wipe us out (Even though we have several, never-been-used antibiotics stashed away.) You are right in that noone except a bunch of goths would CHOOSE anarchy.

What you describe with the dictatorship isnt how an anarchic society would work. Post the apocalypse, people are around with modern ideas and whatnot, and assuming all the libraries, universities etc arnt destroyed, once the survivors have established a community they can regain the old knowledge faster. I think in a lot of cases, people WOULD follow a single inspiring leader. But in a lot of places, it'd be democratic, communistic or socialistic. A lot of people would take the chance to sow the seeds of their own ideal society.

Panzer tank > Anarchy and good intentions.

Anyone remember the neo-liberal goths who ran the libary in Fallout?

Meet the archtype.