Right this is a open question. Is your country democratic or a dictatorship?

Now this may seem to have a simple answer but government laws are beginning to restrict people on what they can and can't do.

For example the smoking act in England has now scrubbed the poor smokers from a LOT of areas, which restricts the freedom to smoke except in private areas.

This is a restriction of freedom, which doesn't seem needed. It doesn't give the option for restaurants to enforce or ignore, they are FORCED to listen.

On the other hand the law against crime is a restriction on freedom but a good one. It is reasonable and is rightful.

So i throw this question out to everyone. Is your country, in your opinion, a democratic or a dictatorship?

Any law could be construed as dictatorial. Anti-copyrightists will feel like that about copyright laws, smokers will feel like that about smoking bans, hunters about hunting bans, shooters about gun control, and so forth.
I think it's important, when considering a democracy, to take into account the general interests of the population. That's what a democracy is, really. Restricting fringe groups in order to create an overall more stable society.

I'm sure the anarchists and (if any?) libertarians here would disagree with me on that. My personal opinion is that democracy should occur on a much more local scale, with counties, cities and even neighbourhood councils having the ability to introduce or amend certain laws, based on local referenda.

A good example of this is police funding. As is painfully obvious, urban areas are often susceptible to a greater level of crime than, say, small countryside parishes. Obviously police funding isn't equal across these areas anyway, but it would be a vastly superior system if we allowed the local people to have a say in police funding and how it's spent.

Problems arise when we look at things like fox hunting. It's a pretty stupid thing, really, fox hunting. It's supported almost exclusively by a rich and relatively unproductive minority out in the country, but if a county-to-county vote was passed, fox hunting would still be legal. Its opponents mainly live in cities or areas where fox hunting isn't even an issue, while its greatest proponents are the fox-hunters themselves, who all live in the country. My point is, sometimes laws need to be looked at on a national scale too, and I don't really know how to address that.

As for your question, which I suppose I've pretty much avoided until now, I don't believe my country's a dictatorship, and the democracy we have is fairly free from corruption. I believe it could be a damn sight better, but at least we've got the vote.

I'm going to swoop in here before any anti-Bush folks establish this as an anti America thread.

Yes, the American government is corrupt around the edges. In modern society, there will always be those folks. The ones who realized that government is just way to make money. Or maybe you get the innocent folks who realized that the best way to get into office is to cheat a little, then it just snowballed. There are people like that in the world, and if our government should be representative of our people, then so be it. You're not exactly perfect, either.

The thing is, there's a small handful of people who actually got somewhere complaining. So unless you're planning on becoming a correspondant for the Daily Show, it's simply not worth your time.

Whenever people get into political discussions, it just makes me sad. Yes, people need to be involved in their government. That's Democracy. But when people argue about it, they basically are saying, "This is what it would be like if I was in charge." That's dictatorship.

We're a conflicted country, and that's why the vote, with its suspected innacuracy, its political propaganda (commercials, campaign trips, even bumper stickers), and its poor representation of the actual public, still works. It's when you have a landslide victory, of 70% or more, that you need to be concerned.

The less you pay attention to debates, campaigns, and discussions, the more objective you tend to be when you read the ballot information, and find out what the proposition really is about.

I think I might've digressed a bit.

But yes, we have a flawed system. But it works. Accusing it of a dictatorship? Stop and think for a minute. When was the last time your rights were violated? Specifically, you?

Speaking from a personal point of view, I'm not allowed to own a handgun any more, even for restricted target shooting purposes. However, the majority of Brits (indeed, the majority of Americans) support strong gun control, and frankly I don't blame them.

Also, there was a vote put forward to the EU recently supporting the banning of Communist imagery. As a member of a large Communist party, that obviously would affect me.

I'm not allowed to endorse or justify terrorism, which on the surface may seem well and good, but in theory means that I'm not able to play the single "Free Nelson Mandela", as he was a convicted terrorist.
(Note: Political ska records aren't really banned, I'm just extending the law to an extreme)

All this said, there are a lot of things I love about my country.
The government puts large amounts of money into social integration and rehabilitation programs, many of our politicians are actively involved in the community, and the government is seeking to annul third-world debt.

On a personal scale, my disabled cousin received support from the local council which allowed his mother to stay in work, I'm able to receive (or refuse) psychiatric medication without having to spend huge amounts of money, and I make a living wage off my crappy retail job at BP.

As long as your own government doesn't kill you or threaten you at gun point we really shouldn't complain all that much.

However freedom is important since you cant just pick up and make your own country.

Yes, because anyone who criticizes the government is a Bush-hating hippie, better tip the argument before we discuss anything with a grain of common sense.

Around the edges? Try the whole fucking system, Water. The whole thing's gone to shit. Have you not read about Bush passing laws that enable the FBI to monitor your communications without a warrant? The one that gives him dictatorial power in "a time of national crisis?" What about the whole fucking Patriot Act in general? Hell, lets look at Congress, have you heard how nearly half the states in the union have tried to implement some form of government restriction on video games? They've all been ruled unconstitutional, and it's not like they were all drafted at the same time. You'dve figured after the first 3 or 4 got shot down, someone would say "gee, I guess we really cant regulate games without infringing on free speech" they're wasting YOUR (or, if you're a non-working minor, your parents') money on this bullshit.

People complain because they're pissed off. People fucking torch Seattle when they want to do something about it.

Ok, this one's just fucking silly. First off, no one is really "involved in government" I'm sure you left me a tasty tidbit to point this out later on, so I'll do it then. And, neither is America, or the UK for that matter, a Democratic nation. When people talk political, they talk about what laws/actions/whatever they want to have enacted, sure if they were in charge that's what they do, but it's not like everyone's going out to overthrow the government so they can have their McNation the way they want it.

Oh yes, I forgot about voting, the staple "balancing ability" of any "democracy" (remember that part where I said I'd talk about how people have no say in government, yeah this is it.)

People have no "choice" in government. Let's take the last election for example

Hmm... am I going to vote for the crazy, white, pro-war nutjob who lied to the people who elected him about the conditions of the war he started. Or am I going to vote for the incoherent, white, indecisive douche who can't make up his mind on a single topic and says all the things he wants to do for the country, while alluding to the fact it's all baseless ideology...hmmm.

Oh yes, the answer is so clear. Only one man can steer our country to glory in this race.

And lets say we do get a halfway decent line between candidates, like the Kennedy Vs. Nixon election. Who's to say Kennedy isn't going to be a total douche when he gets into office? Just because he talked peace didn't mean he was going to be peaceful once he was elected, he could've bombed the fuck out of Cuba and started WW3, I'm sure he'd still be on the half dollar, either way.

Again, just because a candidate has a platform, doesn't mean he has to, or even will, work towards it. It's all just pretty words to help him get elected.

My rights are being violated every second the government can monitor me without a judge's approval, arrest me for bullshit reasons, and execute order #66 on my Jedi just because there's a "National Emergency"

And, let's be realistic for a minute.
I'm 17 years old. I can't vote, therefore I have 0 say in how my government is run. Sure, neither do my parents, but at least they get a pretty voting booth that tells them they do.

I'm 17, I can't buy cigarettes, booze, porn, or be out past I think 1 AM. I'm no less irresponsible than a boozed-up 22 year old Frat boy. Why does he get to fuck around till 4 AM at the annual frat kegger while I'm here sipping apple beer in my room because I can't go outside?

I'm 17, I have to go to High School. Not because I want an education, not even because my parents require me to. My government FORCES me to attend some form of educational facility. Now surely, if I was any respectable youth, I'd attend my maths (yes I use the British term, why I have no idea), English, and Science of my own free will. Why am I being forced then? Why do they take away my 1" pocketknife as I enter the doors? It's not like I'm a danger to others, and if I was I'd likely have an easier time killing someone with my bare hands.

Two rats are placed in a maze, they both smell cheese. One runs up to the nearest wall and smashes his face into it, he attempts to climb out of the maze before the lab tech grabs him and puts him back in his cage. The second runs through the maze without even seeing the walls put up next to him, until he reaches the end, and winds the little mouse-sized gear until the door opens. The lab tech picks him up, puts him in his cage, and puts the bottle of fluid that smells like cheese back in the cabinet. Afterward, he makes a note on a clipboard that the second mouse is assimilating very well to its environment.

The second mouse must be so proud.

Give the thought police a reason to monitor you.

Hmm, what would you call a system where your very intellect is oppressed? One where your little sister is one of the top ten smartest people in the country, but due to "No Child Left Behind" will never graduate from high school. Oh yeah, Republicanism: America style.

EDIT: Oops, I meant Bush style

Oof. It's been a long time since I've done this. I'm feeling all stiff and rusty. Nothing a little stretching won't take care of.

I'm going to pick this little nugget out because I think it's funny that you link to an anarchist website at the end. Bush-hating hippie indeed.

The whole fucking system would mean that politics are corrupt down to a local level, because, well, that is the "whole fucking system". My police do not take bribes. My mayor does not take bribes. My representative does not take bribes. My state senate does not take bribes. I know this for a fact because I have worked for them and with them. Now I have no illusions about parts of the government being corrupt (the lobby scene perturbs me) but Jesus fucking Christ, if you think the whole system is corrupt, you're worse than those whackos who think Bush did 9/11.

I have read about laws being proposed to give Bush emergency powers but I also read that they got shot down like any given Japanese aircraft of your choice.

Here's where READING THE ACTUAL LAWS instead of DailyKOS or Pravda (as much as I liked the old Soviet Party, their newsletter doesn't amount to much more than the Weekly World News anymore) will give you. If you're in communications with a suspected terrorist, your communications may be monitored. Which, in all honestly, is a good policy to have if you want security for your people.

As per government restriction on video games, HOLEEE SHIIIIT. That's a BIG ISSUE. Free speech amounts to free speech. If you want to allow all other kinds of media in that, you have to allow child pornographers to peddle their filth. Where do you draw the line? Free speech was intended to allow criticism of the government without retribution, not to allow you to smash up a hooker with a baseball bat. The senators wanting to put these laws up are acting out of their conscience and what they think is right. If you want someone without Lieberman's "Joementum", wait until you're 18, vote, start petitions, send letters. Bitching from the armchair gets nothing done. And don't give me that "My vote doesn't count" or "I can't do anything" bullshit either. I just gave you a list of things.

How well did that work for them? You're given the right to peacefully protest. As soon as you start gumming up the works you are a criminal. Anarchists ruined a peaceful protest. They are fully responsible, not the police, for the ensuing violence. It pisses me right off when people scream "POLICE BRUTALITY" when the police respond to a riot with force, and even moreso when that riot was a peaceful protest ruined by five dickheads with bricks. Fuck your anarchy.

I will trounce your next point with your own words.

Have you never heard of peaceful protests, petitions and campaigning for causes? Yeah. That's called being involved in government. Running for election because you think you can make things better is also being involved in government. Passing laws you think will better the nation is ALSO being involved in government.

They're called representative democracies. And they are democracies. You've provided no argument against that fact.

That was one election out of forty-two. If you wanted a candidate other than those two in the final election (Nader, whoever), you should have spread the word. You could have written letters to people who you wanted to run. You could have supported third party candidates. There are dozens of things you could have done without voting that would be better than what you are doing now (which is spouting bullshit and whining like a disaffected teenager).

Not knowing the actions a candidate will take in office isn't something you can work around. What you're doing is nothing but merely speculating. Get over the heebie-jeebies, everyone else who votes does. That said, we probably wouldn't have half-dollars if World War Three had come about.

Yes, let's be realistic. I'll start. Your "I have zero say in the government" argument is pure shit. I've already given you different ways to have a say in government. When you get the right to vote at your next birthday, you'll have one more. Voting is not the only way to be involved in the government.

And, while yes, you can't buy booze, porn or smokes, on the whole, a 22 year old citizen is so much more responsible than you are I can't even BEGIN to expound on it. You've already shown a lack of responsibility through your apathy and refusal to try to do anything about the situation you're moaning about.

I don't know where you are but in Indiana you can drop out when you're 16. And you should be forced to finish high school regardless. The dropping of students before they finish high school is ridiculous- at least make them finish high school. Do you really want more of the Jerry Springer demography in America?

End it with an obtuse metaphor. Distasteful.

Almost forgot that little nugget of stupid. If your sister is REALLY one of the 10 smartest people in America, she'd already be in college. I don't think you really grasp the "No Child Left Behind Act".

I was cheering for Nader. .3.

Well in Canada, we have a problem with too many people not bothering to go to the polls, something which frankly isn't good.

Come on, now, Nancy, I'd love to see just how futile your response is going to be.

Bill, I'm not a dickwad. I'm not going to garnish your ego with a counter-counter-response.

You think the current system is just and generally not a hindrance to modern society, I disagree, but it's not like I can, or have any right to attempt to change your opinion.

Yeah, I'm an Anti-Bush hippie, I'm an Anarchist and I'm damned proud of the fact, you can think my opinion is wrong all you like, but you can't change my opinion of our government any more than I can change yours. And I hope you'd have as little desire to attempt so as I do for you.

And while I'm not going to attempt to counter the whole of your statements. As an Anarchist, the changes I want to make in government can't be made from within. How the fuck would I ever be able to pass a law that either abolishes the capitalist infrastructure or turns every business into an essentially non-profit organization? It can't be done inside our current government.

I agree that many Anarchist idealisms could theoretically be accomplished through peaceful action (environmental protection, worker's rights and some wage disputes, etc.) But we can't go the full nine yards while a capitalist structure remains, and therefore, I believe that I have no say in government, because nothing I peacefully do will get me all of what I want accomplished politically. Yes I know the laws and acts they put to public vote are generally effectively decided on, and yes I know that most elections are at least somewhat clearly defined (at least insofar as platforms go), but really how long can a Republic last? Rome stood about 500 years as a Republic, and it was built incredibly well. For the time it lasted as a semi-democratic nation it was the greatest nation on earth, countries were begging to be invaded by Rome so that they could share it's glory.

America has been a superpower since the end of WW2, that's just about 60 years, and already China is looming over our heads as our successor. Now, Rome wasn't seriously challenged until it had already fallen into political chaos and economic collapse. Does this mean America will continue to prosper? Possible, but with a national deficit in the TRILLIONS, I highly doubt such fancy.

I'm an Anarchist, you're a capitalist, I don't give a damn whether you like the system or not, I'm going to try and change it, and I don't give a fuck whether you like that fact or not either, because technically, we can't really be stopped. As long as people are dissatisfied with the system, people will try to change it, and if it cant wholly be changed internally or peacefully, well, then they do what I do (and no, I don't just whine like a little bitch from my computer).

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for peaceful protest if it will get me what I want. But with the way things are, how is that really going to happen?

I know you aren't a dipshit, Bill, and as much as I disagree with you. I hope you'll recognize the same in me.

I don't hate you, I don't hate Capitalists, hell, I don't even hate Capitalism as an economic theory. But I do hate what it has turned out to be, when third and first world workers alike are exploited at a wage that is less than the worth of the goods they produce, I tend to get pissed off.

No form of government, Capitalist, Communist or otherwise will truly work, because it requires open mindedness, honesty, and a will to serve the people without nepotism and the like. Which, quite frankly, isn't going to work. People always have an agenda, be it plainly obvious, or dwindling behind the campaign, but it's there.

Anarchism certainly won't work because it's such a diverse system, and can have squabbles within itself. Individualists will certainly not share their own goals, and certainly would not have anyone to stop them achieving more malevolent plans. What we have now works for most people, or people are not motivated enough to do something about it.

No system is perfect, but as far as the current systems go, the one we have now, in theory, works. Every vote counts, after all.

As for me? My eyes are hardly roses tinted. Jade, more like.

While I agree in at least some part with everything else you've said. Not everyone's vote counts, at least not here in the States. This is blatantly obvious in our Presidential electorate.

For those who don't know, every state is worth a certain amount of electoral "votes" the number of which is based on the state's population.(for a grand total of somewhere around 250-300, if I remember correctly). Each state has a majority vote for a candidate, and whomever wins that majority vote gets ALL the electoral votes for that state. Meaning that all the votes that are cast for the other candidate are essentially trash.

Even then, if you live in a state with a small population, your vote is literally worth less than a single vote from a state with a high population. Now in theory, this should balance itself because a candidate will be voted equally well across the board, and unless it's a landslide victory, each candidate will get a decent number of high-population states.

However, there have been instances where the system fails. The most recent being the Gore Vs. Bush election in 2000. Gore won the popular vote (overall # of votes in the nation), but Bush (supposedly) won the Electoral vote. And thus, the man the PEOPLE voted for, was not the one put into office. Now, admittedly, this has only happened two or three times over the course of 43 presidencies, but if the system fails, then the system need replaced.

Honestly, now that we have electronic voting booths, telephones, internet, and the like. Why the hell don't we just put presidential elections to popular vote? It's not like it'll take a whole lot longer, and then everyone's vote actually will count.

Whats the positive of anarchy?
Seriously anarchy is just for a bunch of hypocrites.
You want to destroy the amendments and laws but at the same time most anarchists wish to be protected by those said amendments and laws?

And what if the U.S Government is destroyed due to anarchism?

OH HOW I CAN SEE IT NOW!
Body's piling up in the street.
Stores being robbed of everything they have.
Everything else gone to shit.

Anarchism is retarded, I'm not gonna turn this post into a book about it.

Holy fuck, someone who knows nothing about Socialism.

At least Bill and Korvaz pointed out the fact that Anarchism has an ideal behind it.

Straight from Wiki:
Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of philosophies and attitudes which reject any form of compulsory government and support its elimination, often because of a wider rejection of involuntary or permanent authority. Anarchism is "a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centered on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary." The term "anarchism" derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons," "without rulers").

There are a variety of types and traditions of anarchism with various points of difference, but not all of them are mutually exclusive. Other than the description above, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance." Different anarchists prefer several different economic systems. Many favor some form of libertarian communism, collectivist anarchism or participatory economics. Others support free-market systems such as mutualism, agorism or anarcho-capitalism. Anarchists schools may differ from each other fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.

Anarchism is the removal of government. Government helps to order the populace, but violence and chaos are not inherent of Anarchism (in fact, violence and chaos are inherent of a lack of socialism). Anarchism is not only a peaceful ideology, but also can be approached in a peaceful manner, if need be. (I don't intend to approach anarchy peacefully, but it certainly can be done.)

Anarchy is the ideology that people do not need to be guided by a religion or dominated by law in order behave civilly, that struggle for resources ceases when the needs of everyone are met, and no one feels inadequately supported, whether economically or psychologically, large portions of this inadequacy are caused by Capitalist manipulation.

To behave civilly without law in order you first gotta get rid of human instinct itself.
Without law, who's gonna stop That guy from killing that guy?
Or that guy raping that girl?

Violence and chaos are present in human nature. In that, anarchy is doomed to failure.

Considering those points.
Wouldn't anarchy be next to impossible?

The world is full of assholes and there's nothing we can do about it. So anarchy wouldn't work.

^^^To all those who believe anarchy is doomed to failure, I must admit that I do not see how it will work out in any long-term. It's said that all the violence and frustration comes down to one's needs, physical or psychological, are not being met, and if these are addressed a person has no reason to act uncivilly, but I know very few people who's needs are fully met.

Obviously, we've never observed whether Anarchy is a possible form of government or not, as no anarchist state has ever been established.

I'd like to think it could work, no matter the fact I can't see how. And whether it can or not doesn't really matter to me, because Anarchy is the new Ideal. With the death of the illusion that Communism was a better form of government than Capitalism, (some may disagree, but I believe so) I see Anarchy as the next thing to try, the next step in the grand experiment that is Socialism. And to that end I will support it. "Doomed to fail" or not.

Violence doesn't just come of needs not being met. I cannot and will not support something I know to be doomed to failure. The only thing anarchy will bring is suffering. Anarchy is not the "New Ideal"- it's older than you know, and it has never worked.

How in the world could anyone ever think Anarchy could work? Honestly. If corruption exists in all governments, in some form...Then what makes you believe people would be able to work together in a civilized manner once no one is there to lead them? Human nature is violent, so any system of removing governance and hierarchy is doomed to failure.

Anarchy may not be new, but it's new as far as being viewed as an ideal form of government. Most people aren't willing to take so much of a step as to remove government, which is why Communism was popularized during the recent political revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries, what with it being the most socialist of all the known governmental approaches.

While I don't believe in Anarchy as a whole, I do believe that the government that can go longest without being corrupted or replaced will be based off of, or closely tied to many of its ideals.

So while I don't support anarchy in and of itself, I believe it's a step in the right direction.

Mainly I like the idea that Anarchy assumes people are basically good, and do not need to be guided to do the right thing. Obviously not everyone is a good person, and not everyone is going to be civil 100% of the time, which is why Anarchy in and of itself doesn't work. But it's the closest thing we've got to what I believe as the right form of government.

Boy, you sure are nice to Bill and Korvaz.

Dickwad.


Easily my favorite part about this post is that you referred to it as a "counter-counter-response".

I'm sorry, but wasn't the post Bill was countering, in turn, a counter to what I said? It's almost as it you simply blocked my post and that entire ordeal out of your memory, so as you can make it look as though you're a nice guy once the mods come around.


Oh, what's that I hear? It's the sound of law enforcement, modeled on the internet. You realized that if you acted around a mod the same way you acted toward me, you'd get in trouble. And, of course, your counter response to my post wasn't enough to get you warned, but I know how political discussions usually end up. Someone always gets pissed. Really pissed.

But when Bill posted, you were reminded that the watchful eyes of him, Korvaz, and practically every other authority on this forum (Hell, the topic is practically flamebait anyways) are, surprisingly, watching.

But without them, how far would you have gone? Go ahead, hit me with your worst.

No comment.

He dissected my post and countered it, expecting me to do the same to his post. Since his post was a counter to mine, which was critical of yours, if I had attempted to counter him it would be a counter-counter, no?

Um, no shit? I provided a counter for what you said, then Bill countered what I had to say. We weren't discussing your post at any point in the convo, although if you had made your own counter, i may have attempted to counter it.

(Jesus, I'm using the word counter a hell of a lot)

Flaming is flaming, insulting is insulting, and criticizing is criticizing. If what I said to you cant be justly modded, then I can say it to anyone. Plus, this is the DEBATE room, and while that is not an excuse for a flame war, people ARE going to end up disagreeing with each other.

I posted respectfully, not asslickingly, and I did it because
1- Korvaz and Bill aren't stupid.
2- Korvaz and Bill know how to hold an argument
and 3- Korvaz and Bill, although good debaters, don't flame people

Now, I do not know if you are stupid, and I do not know if you are good at debate (though all evidence clearly points to no on the second issue), so I acted with my gut. When Bill posted, I knew I was going to get my ass handed to me (argument-wise) if I acted in the same fashion (see #1-3 as to why)

I don't give a damn if the mods are angry any more than I do if a regular member is angry at me. I may be scathing to an idiot, or in your case someone I do not have any evidence of profound intelligence, but that doesn't mean I have any intention to flame other users.

Oooh, did I hurt your feeeeelings by being a little meaner to you than I was to people I know would kick my ass in an argument if I was scathing of their arguments? I'm sooooo sorry. (Prove to me you aren't a moron and you can argue worth a damn, and I'll show you more respect, from reading other debate topics I know Bill and Korvaz have met both of these, and although I'm not saying you don't, you have given me no such evidence)

Interwebs, weighty vocation.

Anarchy is the new ideal for disaffected teenagers.

What I can't wrap my mind around is that you are ADMITTING anarchy is stupid and will not work and you STILL say it's the ideal form of government. It's not even a form of government!

What exactly IS it you think that anarchy is?

You people don't seem to get it. It's not that anarchy can't work, it's the it can't exist.

Humans are social creatures. Ancient man congregated and formed tribes, and from there formed societies. Government is the way a society is structured and maintained, and is a human INSTINCT, just like society, just like fucking.

We evolved from apes. If you look at apes in their little groups, there is an alpha male which leads the group and keeps it from getting out of hand. Is this not a primitive and miniature from of government? "Governemnt" existed even before humans did; merely as a social instinct.

Now, let's pretend for a moment that anarchy could exist. It still wouldn't work because you can't have rules without rulers. And laws themselves defy anarchy.

I mean, in an anarchisitc society, how would a group of people decide what's right and wrong? By vote? That in itself would defy anarchism!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anarchy is an idea, nothing more. It cannot exist and wouldn't work even if it could.

I think people miss the point about anarchy when they say that it features no government, or no human organisation. Anarchists, as I understand it, believe in smaller, practical organisations, councils based around work and the like, rather than a large arbitrary government. One way of looking at it is accountability.
In modern democracies, the government is a separate entity which represents and is held accountable to the people. Anarchists believe that the government should be replaced with accountability to one another.
What's to stop people raping and stealing? The community as a whole would protect themselves against it. The same way you don't steal money from your mother's handbag, or break into your neighbours' houses while they're on holiday.

Marxists typically believe in a transition to this form of organisation through socialism.

Nah, most left-anarchists believe in direct democracy. I appreciate that you're getting into the discussion, but it wouldn't hurt to read up on the topic you're discussing first.

Worker's councils, eh?

That sounds familiar.

Who'd have thunk it, eh? Vladimir Lenin, one of the most vocal anti-Communists of all time, supporting Marxist goals.

I'm not supportive of Anarchy as a practical government (or lack thereof), but I do support it as an idealogical government, and I believe that if it can work (though I don't see how) then it would be ideal.

There are many, MANY forms of anarchy, Ranging from Anarcho-Captialism (very minimal government that keeps order and allows business to run, but that's about it), to full anarchy (0 government, do whatever the hell you want)

Personally, from a practical viewpoint I would like a body around that can keep the peace, but that's really about as far as it goes. I really think man doesn't need law or any other form of control to behave communally as long as his needs are met. Sure people can be assholes for other reasons, and even break current laws in place for reasons other than being inadequately supported. (though there are very, very few cases I can think of, though I accept there are probably more than I can conjure) But on a majority level, there are plenty of places where government control is minimal at best that have not descended into chaos. Now most of these places are not urban, and people are spread out over a relatively large area, which may pose as a factor, but it's not like you can tell me anarchy cannot work until it's been tried.

I agree that full-anarchy probably wouldn't work out, but you can't tell me you "know" its never been tried or tested, especially on people who haven't been conditioned to want more than what they should really desire.

Postal Worker- -_- I was talknig about true anarchy.

What's true anarchy? You mean complete lack of society and order?
That's not really what anarchists want.

No, what your talking about there is a State of Nature. That theory comes from Thomas Hobbes and was then furthered by John Locke.

From wikipedia:

Hobbes's philosophy

The concept of a state of nature was first posited by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes described the concept in the Latin phrase bellum omnium contra omnes, meaning "the war of all against all." In this state any person has a natural right to do anything to preserve their own liberty or safety.

Hobbes believed that human beings in a state of nature would behave "badly" towards one another ("badly" in the sense of morality we commonly apply). Yet Hobbes argued that people had every right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary in the absence of order. Famously, he believed that such a condition would lead to a "war of every man against every man" and make life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." He believed that in the international arena, states behave as individuals do in a state of nature.

Locke's view on the state of nature

John Locke further explores the state of nature in his Second Treatise on Civil Government written around the time of the Engagement Controversy in England during the 1680s. Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance. Like Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish. This is apparent with the introduction of currency. In a natural state all people were equal and independent, and none had a right to harm another’s “life, health, liberty, or possessions.” Locke never refers to Hobbes by name, however, and may instead have been responding to other writers of the day.[1] Locke also advocated governmental checks and balances and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances. These ideas would come to have profound influence on the Constitution of the United States and its Declaration of Independence.

You know, I never was a fan of the phrase, "Internet: Serious Business". It only serves as an excuse to drop out of an arguement that you're losing (that's not to say that you're losing, Cyclone) and make the other side look like they're being too passionate. I, myself, don't believe it's possible to be too passionate when a serious discussion like this is going on.

I apologize for being so late in replying to this. I've been busy.

You did a pretty strong job of defending yourself, and pointing it back at me. (Although there were some parts that didn't make any sense to me at all)

But I must ask, when you began to accuse me of being a poor debater, what proof did you have? Was there anything that I've said in previous posts that provoked you to think that I couldn't hold an arguement? Or was it just because you haven't seen me much on the War Room? If it is the latter, I'd just like to say, in my own defense, this topic has been incredibly bare recently, and most of the topics in it weren't to my interest. (For instance, "Running vs. Shuffling, zombies lol") But this isn't about the forum. It's about me, obviously. (not to sound like an attention whore, but you were the one who pushed the debate onto me)

And also, why, oh why, did you think that saying that I was bad at debating would actually hurt my feelings? I literally said to you, "Go ahead, hit me with your worst" Did you think I would actually stoop to letting a few petty words hurt my "feeeeelings"?

This reminds me of this quote I heard once. What was it... Oh yes.

See, now that's a decently intelligent post.

And as to whether or not you were bad at debating, the only evidence I had as to your skill was your first post, and to be honest, it wasn't that good. But obviously I was stretching a little to think you weren't skilled on the whole.

And I agree, most topics posted in the debate forum until this one were rather lame, which is why you haven't seen me around here, either.

As for my rather assish ending, it seemed to me that you felt you were getting flamed while you thought I was being relatively asskissing in my debate with Bill. And therefore I thought you were angry at the fact I was using a different technique in my discussion with Bill than I was with you, thus my rather sarcastic approach.

Not bad on using my own comments of being overly serious against me, not the best setup but 5 on the execution. (Really, I'm being serious, that was a decent burn)

If you don't mind me asking, what parts of my argument did you not understand? I'm trying to make my arguments more appealing to laymen, so any advice on the matter is appreciated.

(See, post intelligently and I have no reason to be disrespectful)

I'm glad this dispute was able to end peacefully. The topic was starting to feel uncomfortable.

I was a little confused by your rebuttal to my "Counter-counter-counter" complaint, but now I realize that it really wasn't that important. Only noting it because you asked me to.

In my first post, all I wanted to get across was that (in my opinion) government is only corrupt to the point that people can joke and sometimes complain about it. I, for one, am perfectly satisfied with my system of government. That could, however, only be because it hasn't affected me much. I live in an upper-middle class family, and have heard very little about government.

I, too believe that people are essentially good, and do their misdeeds in response for injustices against them. However, I think that anarchy can only work with people who haven't experienced any other kind of government. You see, if America or England went under an anarchist revolution, and everyone recieved equality and a lawless society, there would still be injustices carried over from pre-revolution.

If a kid living in the ghetto wakes up one morning and hears that there was an anarchist revolution, and there is no longer a system of laws or government, what do you think he's going to do? Rape and pillage. He may live in an equal society now, but over the course of his life, he has developed a naturally malevolent nature.

Basically, what I'm saying is that anarchy might be possible, it's just that it's impossible for a capitolistic, communistic, whateveristic society to become an anarchist society.

Maybe what we need is a Truman-Show-esque experiment in which new minds are introduced to anarchy and no other system of government until they've been indoctrinated. (I apologize if I accidentally make this sound like a fascism)

^^^ I actually agree with a lot of that. Many minds that have not been personally effected by the injustices that the government has recently passed will not view the government as broken. Sure, government schools may suck, but surely that's just because school is not enjoyable, right?

I remember stories of people literally flocking to Plato (at least I think it was Plato, some Greek philosopher) in order to learn his teachings. Clearly education is not something that's naturally frowned upon.

Poor people and upper-middle to upper class people need not worry about the broken healthcare system, because the former can't afford any of it, and the latter can afford any procedure they may need/want.

I do agree that on the whole, a capitalist or other competition-based society wouldn't likely be able to support an Anarchist society. We'd need to either raise children into it, or entirely fix the program before removing it(get rid of national poverty and slowly remove competition from the society). I think many Anarchists are duped into thinking anarchy is more practical than it really is because they only socialize with people who support it, and who are generally non-competitive.

I don't think we can change a society to anarchism, but we should be able to make room for ourselves, a place where people who don't want to compete argue or generally circle their brothers and sisters and growl can go.

If anarchist don't want anarchy, what do they want? A form of pseudo-anarchy?(whatever the hell that means) Communism?Revolutionary Government?Dictatorship?

P.S. I found a definition of anarchy:Anarchy - A complete lack of government that usually results in a state of lawlessness and disorder.

Edit: Wiki happens to disagree with your definition:
Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχία anarchía, "without authority") may refer to any of the following:

* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to beliefs that people are inherently good and can organize themselves without government or bureaucracies; another type of political order."
* "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority in any given sphere.


Most anarchists are more interested in removing bureaucratic bullshit governments than making sure peace is maintained once it is, sadly.

Obviously, a Republic or Dictatorship would not be tolerated in an Anarchist society, though forms of Pure-Democracy may be possible. Communism is shown to be flawed, as people will abuse the system to their own advantage, as would anyone subjected to a 0-law government who was not raised in such a culture who did not have a very communal mindset.

Anarcho-Capitalism, while frowned upon by most Anarchists, does seem to be the most practical of the popular Anarchist theories, as it retains an essentially Capitalist economy while supporting the freedom and standard of living of an Anarchist society, creating a relatively tasteful blend of Socialism and Capitalism.