Anarchy vs Security

[Mello_]

We all agree that feudalism,facism, communism, etc. etc. are bad. Since capitalism is not good in last years people talk a lot about Anarchy. I know about Proudhon, Paris commune, Barcelona Orwell and all that. 

But would you rather choose Anarchy or Security? I think that Hobbes said that people will rather choose security.

Personally, I would rather be judged by educated objective judge than local sheriffs, crazy neighbours, gang, cult/sect leader, junkies or mob. For me Anarchist is person who have nothing and want to share everything.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Mello_

[+Desertrat56]

I think the people who wish for anarchy have some kind of mental disorder.  They want society to collapse instead of just finding a remote place where they can be left alone.  There are a lot of people purposely in remote areas because they don't fit in with society but they are sane enough to know that they don't have to take it down with them.

It is normal to want to be comfortable but sometimes things have to change and if enough people can agree on that change it can be done fairly gracefully.  Right now we have a program of fear controlling most people and nothing will change until that program is taken down, either by people refusing to buy it or play it, or by some disaster that takes out the fear mongers.

This is not something to think about lightly.  You have to decide how much you are willing to give up in order to feel secure.

[+joc]

Capitalism has always been good.  More good than bad...put it that way.  Every human civilized system has it's pluses and minuses.  Anarchy is not a system.  Anarchy is the opposite of system.  One doesn't have to give up Freedom for Security.  Only in an Orwellian world view does that even make any sense.  

So...the question of Anarchy vs Security....mmmm...no.  The question of Freedom vs Tyranny...yes.  Anarchy is it's own form of tyranny.

[ExpandMyMind]

You appear to not know what anarchy or anarchists are. It's not a political doctrine like communism or capitalism. Anarchy is challenging the existing political order, so, you can have communist anarchists trying to change a capitalist society or the reverse, or even anarchists with a new political ideology altogether.

That's my understanding, at least.

[XenoFish]

Anarchism

[TigerBright19]

Authoritarian Socialist Utopia.  Peace of mind and everyone working for the greater good of the state.  Putting the needs of the community above their own, with every essential service nationalized e.g. maternity, education, housing, transport, health, vacations, insurance, pensions, funerals.  Also the abolition of currency.  Everyone is rewarded with essential foods and services, and promotions are awarded with higher grades in food, home luxuries, and upgrades in transport, housing, and services.

Sound common sense really.

 

 

But instead, we have self indulgences, short-term extravagant luxuries, and the people are told to be content with their highly regulated individual freedoms as long as it does not interrupt the status quo.  I'm all in favor of a universal reformation but it would probably take a nuclear war or cataclysmic global environmental disaster to change the status quo.  Would be interested in alternatives to achieve the same results, but without mass casualties.

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Aaron2016

[littlebrowndragon]

1 hour ago, Mello_ said:

We all agree that feudalism,facism, communism, etc. etc. are bad. Since capitalism is not good in last years people talk a lot about Anarchy. I know about Proudhon, Paris commune, Barcelona Orwell and all that. 

But would you rather choose Anarchy or Security? I think that Hobbes said that people will rather choose security.

Personally, I would rather be judged by educated objective judge than local sheriffs, crazy neighbours, gang, cult/sect leader, junkies or mob. For me Anarchist is person who have nothing and want to share everything.

If you used the word “freedom” instead of “anarchy”, then what would you choose: security or freedom?

 

A lot rests, I think, on the word chosen.  For myself, I would choose freedom.

Edited November 20, 2019 by littlebrowndragon

[+joc]

16 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

You appear to not know what anarchy or anarchists are. It's not a political doctrine like communism or capitalism. Anarchy is challenging the existing political order, so, you can have communist anarchists trying to change a capitalist society or the reverse, or even anarchists with a new political ideology altogether.

That's my understanding, at least.

I am assuming you are referring to the OP.

[XenoFish]

All governments and governing bodies are an illusion. Same for money. We are in a "comfortable" lie. Money has no real value except that which we give it, political figure only have power because we allow it. 

Edited November 20, 2019 by XenoFish

[+joc]

11 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Authoritarian Socialist Utopia.  Peace of mind and everyone working for the greater good of the state.  Putting the needs of the community above their own, with every essential service nationalized e.g. maternity, education, housing, transport, health, vacations, insurance, pensions, funerals.  Also the abolition of currency.  Everyone is rewarded with essential foods and services, and promotions are awarded with higher grades in food, home luxuries, and upgrades in transport, housing, and services.

Sound common sense really.

It isn't sound common sense...it doesn't work...it's never worked and it never will work.  

[Mello_]

Utopia come from the greek word which means "no where."

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, joc said:

It isn't sound common sense...it doesn't work...it's never worked and it never will work.  

Considering that deep down, people are selfish chaotic animals.

[ExpandMyMind]

42 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

You appear to not know what anarchy or anarchists are. It's not a political doctrine like communism or capitalism. Anarchy is challenging the existing political order, so, you can have communist anarchists trying to change a capitalist society or the reverse, or even anarchists with a new political ideology altogether.

That's my understanding, at least.

 

35 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Anarchism

My mistake. Was basing my opinion on a misremembered psychology assignment.

Edited November 20, 2019 by ExpandMyMind

[Piney]

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

There are a lot of people purposely in remote areas because they don't fit in with society but they are sane enough to know that they don't have to take it down with them.

And that isn't even legal or feasible without some nibshit reporting you to the law. 

Funny fact for all you Americans. It is legal in China. 

[spartan max2]

I mean, anarchy is pretty dumb. 

But I also think you can have security without having a full blown authoritarian goverment.

It's a constant balancing act IMO.

 

[Mello_]

1 hour ago, joc said:

Capitalism has always been good.  More good than bad...put it that way.  Every human civilized system has it's pluses and minuses.  Anarchy is not a system.  Anarchy is the opposite of system.  One doesn't have to give up Freedom for Security.  Only in an Orwellian world view does that even make any sense.  

So...the question of Anarchy vs Security....mmmm...no.  The question of Freedom vs Tyranny...yes.  Anarchy is it's own form of tyranny.

Capitalism is also bad. But its lesser evil. Democracy also have bad things. Lets say 9 peeps and you have diacussion. Peeps want to build a house on the river. And you say guys its stupid. Someone say hey lets vote. And they 9 vote for yes. 

 

But whats so good about anarchy maybe except for spintanous order in economics which we saw in Spain during civil war. Everything you can do in anarchy you can do in west Europe for example. I dont know did anyone noticed group of new age Anarchists which call their home Damanhur in Italy. They live on trees. They live underground. They have all sorts of mumbo jumbo like time traveling machine. To me they are like Theocracy in Iran. Only they believe in time travel, astral travel, lucid dreaming and stuff. To half of them sort of Psychosis. 

 

But Anarchy means no goverment. No security. I dont want to be judged by crazy mob, local sheriffs etc.

[+joc]

3 minutes ago, Mello_ said:

Capitalism is also bad. But its lesser evil. Democracy also have bad things. Lets say 9 peeps and you have diacussion. Peeps want to build a house on the river. And you say guys its stupid. Someone say hey lets vote. And they 9 vote for yes. 

 

But whats so good about anarchy maybe except for spintanous order in economics which we saw in Spain during civil war. Everything you can do in anarchy you can do in west Europe for example. I dont know did anyone noticed group of new age Anarchists which call their home Damanhur in Italy. They live on trees. They live underground. They have all sorts of mumbo jumbo like time traveling machine. To me they are like Theocracy in Iran. Only they believe in time travel, astral travel, lucid dreaming and stuff. To half of them sort of Psychosis. 

 

But Anarchy means no goverment. No security. I dont want to be judged by crazy mob, local sheriffs etc.

Capitalism is an economic system.  Democracy is a political system.

[spartan max2]

19 minutes ago, Mello_ said:

Capitalism is also bad. But its lesser evil. Democracy also have bad things. Lets say 9 peeps and you have diacussion. Peeps want to build a house on the river. And you say guys its stupid. Someone say hey lets vote. And they 9 vote for yes. 

 

But whats so good about anarchy maybe except for spintanous order in economics which we saw in Spain during civil war. Everything you can do in anarchy you can do in west Europe for example. I dont know did anyone noticed group of new age Anarchists which call their home Damanhur in Italy. They live on trees. They live underground. They have all sorts of mumbo jumbo like time traveling machine. To me they are like Theocracy in Iran. Only they believe in time travel, astral travel, lucid dreaming and stuff. To half of them sort of Psychosis. 

 

But Anarchy means no goverment. No security. I dont want to be judged by crazy mob, local sheriffs etc.

The example you give is the reason democracies are actually "representative republics", it has checks and balances to lessen the problem of straight mob rule.

Plus 9 people voting to be dumb ia less likely then 1 guy making the decision for the other 8 people to do something dumb. 

 

Edit: the enlightenment fellows actually put alot of thought into the idea of mob rule. That's why they created the bill of rights and seperation of branches. As a balance.

Edited November 20, 2019 by spartan max2

[Wes83]

13 minutes ago, joc said:

Capitalism is an economic system.  Democracy is a political system.

It seems tied together, capitalism and democracy can wreak havoc on one another. Lawmakers making laws that help the thriving capitalist and capitalist buying laws. 

[Mello_]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

The example you give is the reason democracies are actually "representative republics", it has checks and balances to lessen the problem of straight mob rule.

Plus 9 people voting to be dumb ia less likely then 1 guy making the decision for the other 8 people to do something dumb. 

 

Edit: the enlightenment fellows actually put alot of thought into the idea of mob rule. That's why they created the bill of rights and seperation of branches. As a balance.

Yes but what about referendums?

[Coil]

4 hours ago, Mello_ said:

But would you rather choose Anarchy or Security? I think that Hobbes said that people will rather choose security.

320.The anarchic is the true divine state of man in the end as in the beginning; but in between it would lead us straight to the devil and his kingdom.

https://www.hinduwebsite.com/divinelife/auro/auro_aphorisms.asp

[Mello_]

2 hours ago, joc said:

Capitalism is an economic system.  Democracy is a political system.

Im aware of it. Democratic rule is ok. Just want to point out that even that ok rule have holes. Also many parts of work is left to ngos. 

But capitalism have errors close to any ruling system before.

[Melskaya]

Way back in the day when I was in college (during the early Cretaceous period, I think)… I was sitting in my Poli Sci lab group and we were discussing freedom from and freedom to. We were asked which we would choose. The example we were given for each was freedom to... you can walk down the streets of America and say what you want and there may or may not be consequences like getting jumped. Freedom from... you can walk down the streets of Leningrad (told ya it was long ago) and you won't get jumped but you also can't say whatever you like. You have freedom from street crime or you have freedom to dance in the rain and sing barefoot and wearing pajamas. This OP made me think of freedom to or freedom from. Just my twopence.

[spartan max2]

8 minutes ago, Mello_ said:

Yes but what about referendums?

? Lol.

It's a thing governments do as well. I think you missed my overarching point though.

[Mello_]

3 minutes ago, Coil said:

320.The anarchic is the true divine state of man in the end as in the beginning; but in between it would lead us straight to the devil and his kingdom.

https://www.hinduwebsite.com/divinelife/auro/auro_aphorisms.asp

Yes. On the trace of Machiavellianism...first of all arm yourself and stuff. It would lead to more chaos. I dont belive that people are in nature good and kind. Every person trough his life goes trough turmoils...inside battle. In economics its different. Anarchism could work and did work in social experimwnts. But in the question of law, medicine...oh boy what a disaster would that be.