Anarchy, It doesn't sound like what I'm told.

[Saya]

Saya, our lives "weren't significantly improved because of the moon landing"? What do you think of as improvement? Microwaves? Pacemakers? Advances in food preservation? The very computer that you're on right now?

Those all came out of research done for the space program. It's a small point on the surface, but it should show you that there are considerations that lie beneath the surface, ones not readily seen at a glance.

The first pacemaker was made in 1950 by a Canadian, and improvments on it were made by scientists over the years by many different scientists in different countires. The microwave oven was first made in 1947 after an engineer was working with radars and noticed chocolate in his pocket was melting. Computers also have been around since the fourties. While research may have been accelerated by space research, its hard to say whether they would've been made without it or not.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

But what if not everyone in the community likes the idea of a rocket? What if there is an accident with the rocket, and someone loses a child? What if during the building of the bridge, the community is attacked by rabid bears?

I really don't see what that has to do with anything. Tragic things happen no matter what form of government there is (or isn't as the case may be).

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Saya

The first pacemaker was made in 1950 by a Canadian, and improvments on it were made by scientists over the years by many different scientists in different countires. The microwave oven was first made in 1947 after an engineer was working with radars and noticed chocolate in his pocket was melting. Computers also have been around since the fourties. While research may have been accelerated by space research, its hard to say whether they would've been made without it or not.

That. Is. Not. My. Point.

My point is that, when you make sweeping, blanket statements like "we didn't benefit materially from the space program", you deny the complexity of the situation, and completely ignore any issues linked to, but not directly addressed by, your argument. It's a narrow way of looking at things, and one that leaves you open to attack from the sides, where you conveniently have chosen not to look.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Band together and what? Be celebrated as new dictators?
Seriously, none of you have answered me the simple question. The only thing you did was 'improve' on what Tam said by saying that it wouldn't be just one person, but rather a group.
If you honestly had no arbitrary authority to be subordinate to, and a group said "hey, we want to be your dictators" you would say "ok!"
...
?

Does the group have weapons? If so, does it MATTER if I agree or disagree? How large are they?

[Saya]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

That. Is. Not. My. Point.

My point is that, when you make sweeping, blanket statements like "we didn't benefit materially from the space program", you deny the complexity of the situation, and completely ignore any issues linked to, but not directly addressed by, your argument. It's a narrow way of looking at things, and one that leaves you open to attack from the sides, where you conveniently have chosen not to look.

You're point mate was that those things came from space research, when they came before. Find better examples.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Solumina

I really don't see what that has to do with anything. Tragic things happen no matter what form of government there is (or isn't as the case may be).

Her point is, what happens if disaster strikes, but there's no centralized authority that can adequately rise to the challenge?

What if there's a flash flood? I'd say that everyone, even anarchists, could agree that that is bad, but what the hell would they do about it? It's unlikely that a society based on the unanimous consensus and good will of its citizens would be able to rise to the challenge without becoming paralyzed and/or imploding.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Saya

You're point mate was that those things came from space research, when they came before. Find better examples.

That was decidedly not my point. It was an example that I used in an attempt to show you that narrowly dismissing something as irrelevant without sufficient forethought ignores results and consequences that may not be readily apparent, but are most decidedly still present.

Failure on my part, I suppose.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

Does the group have weapons? If so, does it MATTER if I agree or disagree? How large are they?

I should think that the Anarchists would outweigh the Dictators in such a situation. It would lead to civil war, of course, but that's an eventuality of every system. Anarchism doesn't claim to be idyllic where nobody ever disagrees. It's the freest we can get. So, we want to get there.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Her point is, what happens if disaster strikes, but there's no centralized authority that can adequately rise to the challenge?

What if there's a flash flood? I'd say that everyone, even anarchists, could agree that that is bad, but what the hell would they do about it? It's unlikely that a society based on the unanimous consensus and good will of its citizens would be able to rise to the challenge without becoming paralyzed and/or imploding.

Or, I should add, being overwhelmed by the situation before the long, slow, process of reaching a unanimous decision acceptable to all parties could finished.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Her point is, what happens if disaster strikes, but there's no centralized authority that can adequately rise to the challenge?

What if there's a flash flood? I'd say that everyone, even anarchists, could agree that that is bad, but what the hell would they do about it? It's unlikely that a society based on the unanimous consensus and good will of its citizens would be able to rise to the challenge without becoming paralyzed and/or imploding.

The person who pipes up with the best idea gets to see that idea carried through. Sure there may be people who don't want to do that and he/she will not have a way to force those people to follow him/her but most people will want something to be done and they will work together and follow through with what seems to be the best idea. I am positive that it would take less time for a decision to be reached than it does within the democratic system.

[JCC]

Yes, because an Anarchist state would not have the foresight to think about such eventualities. They would be completely unaware of fire safety, and therefore nobody would be allowed to leave burning buildings until a consensus in the community had been reached. Nobody would think of anything before it actually happened, because everyone knows that the second government is dissoluted, every action is a knee-jerk reaction.

Pull the other one, Pinstripes.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by JCC

I should think that the Anarchists would outweigh the Dictators in such a situation. It would lead to civil war, of course, but that's an eventuality of every system. Anarchism doesn't claim to be idyllic where nobody ever disagrees. It's the freest we can get. So, we want to get there.

That would only be possible if all the Anarchists believed fully in both Anarchy and war. Said "Dictator" could easily offer something "better" than Anarchy, just as you think Anarchy's "better" than government. If that was all it took to make everyone an Anarchist, that's all it'll take to turn them back.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

That would only be possible if all the Anarchists believed fully in both Anarchy and war. Said "Dictator" could easily offer something "better" than Anarchy, just as you think Anarchy's "better" than government. If that was all it took to make everyone an Anarchist, that's all it'll take to turn them back.

That's fine. If people choose a new system, what's the problem?

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by JCC

Yes, because an Anarchist state would not have the foresight to think about such eventualities. They would be completely unaware of fire safety, and therefore nobody would be allowed to leave burning buildings until a consensus in the community had been reached. Nobody would think of anything before it actually happened, because everyone knows that the second government is dissoluted, every action is a knee-jerk reaction.

Pull the other one.

Are you fucking serious? Are you saying that anarchists have the foresight to see every possibility on the horizon? I'm not saying that they couldn't put out a few fires, but if a situation ever arose where a leader was needed IMMEDIATELY, where immediate action was the order of the day, how could a society based on unanimous decision making react in time, especially if that society was larger than a small hamlet?

After all, isn't that the idea behind an anarchist society? Universal cooperation based on unanimous agreement? Voting would be out, because that would really make things into more of a democracy, or a democratic republic, than an anarchist society, wouldn't it?

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Solumina

The person who pipes up with the best idea gets to see that idea carried through. Sure there may be people who don't want to do that and he/she will not have a way to force those people to follow him/her but most people will want something to be done and they will work together and follow through with what seems to be the best idea. I am positive that it would take less time for a decision to be reached than it does within the democratic system.

Who decides what "the best idea" is? On what do you base your confidence that "it would take less time for a decision to be reached than it does within the democratic system"? How big of a society are you talking about, here, because in anything larger than a village I can see major flaws in the budgeting of time alone. And that's not even taking into account differences in personality among the populace that you so boldly assert will always make the "right" choice.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Are you fucking serious? Are you saying that anarchists have the foresight to see every possibility on the horizon? I'm not saying that they couldn't put out a few fires, but if a situation ever arose where a leader was needed IMMEDIATELY, where immediate action was the order of the day, how could a society based on unanimous decision making react in time, especially if that society was larger than a small hamlet?

No, I'm saying that Anarchists don't suddenly forget that flash floods exist.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

After all, isn't that the idea behind an anarchist society? Universal cooperation based on unanimous agreement? Voting would be out, because that would really make things into more of a democracy, or a democratic republic, than an anarchist society, wouldn't it?

Voting wouldn't make it a democracy. A democracy has a government. Anarchism is without government, that's it. Voting doesn't make an Anarchist society suddenly have a president.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by JCC

No, I'm saying that Anarchists don't suddenly forget that flash floods exist.

What about events larger than flash-floods. You know, ones we can't see coming and might not have ever envisioned? Those pesky X-Factors, like war, famine, pestilence, climatic shift, or just plain ol' UNFORESEEN DIFFICULTIES?

How big of an anarchist society are you talking about, anyway? I think that's a question that needs to be addressed.

Originally Posted by JCC

Voting wouldn't make it a democracy. A democracy has a government. Anarchism is without government, that's it. Voting doesn't make an Anarchist society suddenly have a president.

Who says a democracy needs a president? Taking action based on a majority-rules vote is a democracy. Hence the Demos in democracy.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

What about events larger than flash-floods. You know, ones we can't see coming and might not have ever envisioned? Those pesky X-Factors, like war, famine, pestilence, climatic shift, or just plain ol' UNFORESEEN DIFFICULTIES?

Ones we can't see coming and might not have ever envisioned are no better dealt with by our current system, they're unforeseen.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

How big of an anarchist society are you talking about, anyway? I think that's a question that needs to be addressed.

Ideally, small communities that are in contact with other local communities for trade and support to create a county community, that interacts with other counties for a regional community, then a bi-regional, then a national, continental, intercontinental, and eventually global community of decentralized autonomous communities involved together.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Who says a democracy needs a president? Taking action based on a majority-rules vote is a democracy. Hence the Demos in democracy.

Democracy is generally a political ideology is people having say in who their leader is. There's no point taking apart the word, it doesn't change what democracy is as an idea.

EDIT: Actually, there is Anarchist Democracy. Proudhon talked about Direct Democracy, and said that majority rule should be as amiable to minorities as possible or shouldn't go ahead, regardless of numbers, then there's Anarchocommunists that say that voting and majority decisions are integral to Anarchism.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by JCC

Ones we can't see coming and might not have ever envisioned are no better dealt with by our current system, they're unforeseen.

I'm not saying our current system is perfect (as evidenced by certain natural disasters in recent years...) but some system is better than no system at all. I sincerely doubt that an anarchist community would be able to swing all of its members in a direction that was conducive to building and funding organizations designed to combat such unknown X-factors. Small communities would have an especially hard time of it, as their resources would be, by necessity, limited.

Originally Posted by JCC

Ideally, small communities that are in contact with other local communities for trade and support to create a county community, that interacts with other counties for a regional community, then a bi-regional, then a national, continental, intercontinental, and eventually global community of decentralized autonomous communities involved together.

How would you maintain equality across such a broad spectrum of independent small settlements? What if the local economy, geography, and climate gave one precedence over the other? Without the intervention of the other communities, it might become more wealthy and powerful than the rest. But, with the intervention of other communities, the whole structure of independent societies living together in a state of non-interference would be shattered. Bit circular, really, innit?

Originally Posted by JCC

Democracy is generally a political ideology is people having say in who their leader is. There's no point taking apart the word, it doesn't change what democracy is as an idea.

This is just wrong. What you're talking about here is a Democratic republic, which is what the modern-day U.S.A. is. There's a world of difference between democracy and a democratic republic.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

This is just wrong. What you're talking about here is a Democratic republic, which is what the modern-day U.S.A. is. There's a world of difference between democracy and a democratic republic.

There's a world of difference between most modes of democracy. There's Socialist Democracy, Representative Democracy, Parliamentary Democracy, Anarchist Democracy, I can't possibly go into them all, so I chose the most well-known, which is why I said 'generally'. I'm not trying to pigeonhole democracy as a broad ideology into one of its branches.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

I'm not asking you to go into the various branches of democracy, but your definition, "a political ideology is people having say in who their leader is", is most definitely one of those sub-categories: a democratic republic.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Man, what happened to the others that were in on this argument? It's back down to just me and JCC! Are we that offensive?

[Tam Li Hua]

No, Pithy, you aren't. Me personally, I'm just easily distracted. XD

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

I have that probl.... Oooh! A nickel!

[JCC]

I think the subject's played out, eh.