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

[Saya]

Romans 13:1-7

"1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

Its sounds like their more socialist than anarchist, Humane.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

And you're telling me that if you had no bosses, no gods, no masters, no managers, someone that said "know what? I want to subjugate other people"
He could go up to you and tell you "hey, leave what you're doing; I want to be your dictator"
and you'd say "ok!"
....
?

If I did not even have a God to answer to, I would say that the offer to become a dictator myself would be pretty damned tempting. Hell, even as a Christian, it would be tempting! >=D

Are you saying that you -wouldn't- be tempted by such an offer? [If so, then perhaps you are a much better person than I, Jillz.

Edit: I have no problem with democracy, or oligarcy, or [fair] government in general; at times, I've been -very- glad for it; it's helped me to keep a sense of self-control over myself, so to speak.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by Saya

Dude, there was always a pope. Remember Peter?

Ever hear of the Catholic Worker Movement?

My apologies; I was referring to the Church before Catholicism, the one that was begun in Acts chapter 2. ^^;;

Sorry for the confusion.

Acts 2:43-47:

43 The apostles were doing many miracles and signs, and everyone felt great respect for God. 44 All the believers were together and shared everything. 45 They would sell their land and the things they owned and then divide the money and give it to anyone who needed it. 46 The believers met together in the Temple every day. They ate together in their homes, happy to share their food with joyful hearts. 47 They praised God and were liked by all the people. Every day the Lord added those who were being saved to the group of believers.

[Necrophagist]

Hmm, there a possability that anarchy can work. People are getting much to confused between the two concepts known as:

a) a utopia

b) anarchy

[JCC]

Originally Posted by HellforgedX

Anarchy can never work. If there were no laws, there would be no punishments for anyone strong-arming anyone else. That turns in to leadership by might (do this OR ELSE!!!) which will turn into a dictatorship. Therefore, no anarchy.

Hey, guess what genius, that's not Anarchism! That's Radical Individualism, a completely different, stupid, ideology.

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

With Anarchy, all you'd have to do is declare yourself King.

Why the shit would a global community that's been living harmoniously without dictation simply let you declare yourself their overlord?

Basically, humans don't want government. We don't want to be controlled or told what to do, because as soon as we're told to do something we don't like, we dismantle the authority and create a new one that agrees with us, it happens constantly throughout history. Anarchy accepts that we want to rule ourselves.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

My apologies; I was referring to the Church before Catholicism, the one that was begun in Acts chapter 2. ^^;;

Sorry for the confusion.

Acts 2:43-47:

43 The apostles were doing many miracles and signs, and everyone felt great respect for God. 44 All the believers were together and shared everything. 45 They would sell their land and the things they owned and then divide the money and give it to anyone who needed it. 46 The believers met together in the Temple every day. They ate together in their homes, happy to share their food with joyful hearts. 47 They praised God and were liked by all the people. Every day the Lord added those who were being saved to the group of believers.

Thats not quite anarchy. More of a commune. And in any case Peter was still the Pope, wasn't Catholicism in the modern sense but he still was the head of the church and a authority figure.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by Saya

Thats not quite anarchy. More of a commune. And in any case Peter was still the Pope, wasn't Catholicism in the modern sense but he still was the head of the church and a authority figure.

Good point, though I don't know if Peter himself looked at it quite that way. XD

I agree that it may not fit the exact definition of anarchy, seeing as how they were all still responsible to Roman authorities.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by JCC

Basically, humans don't want government. We don't want to be controlled or told what to do, because as soon as we're told to do something we don't like, we dismantle the authority and create a new one that agrees with us, it happens constantly throughout history. Anarchy accepts that we want to rule ourselves.

Shrewd observation. We just want to be left alone. That being said, an anarchist collective would not have attained the critical mass needed to put a man on the moon or build the Panama Canal. Some projects are on such a large scale that it takes a more centralized and coercive government to do them. I am speaking in a practical and historical context; theoretically an anarchist collective could accomplish the same things a centralized and coercive government can.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Shrewd observation. We just want to be left alone. That being said, an anarchist collective would not have attained the critical mass needed to put a man on the moon or build the Panama Canal. Some projects are on such a large scale that it takes a more centralized and coercive government to do them. I am speaking in a practical and historical context; theoretically an anarchist collective could accomplish the same things a centralized and coercive government can.

There's no reason why human technology would come to a halt. If a community wants to build a canal, why would they need to be coerced? Just explain to them why a canal would need to be made, have them vote on it, pool resources and labour, and tada! A canal. Same goes for the man on the moon, though I think everyone would say "What a bloody waste of time and resources." and vote it down XD

@Tam: Matthew 16:17-19

"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

I think it probably went to Peter's head to hear that

[Tam Li Hua]

Saya: Ahh, but it would be getting the humans to agree that would be the problem, IMHO..

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Saya

If a community wants to build a canal, why would they need to be coerced? Just explain to them why a canal would need to be made, have them vote on it, pool resources and labour, and tada! A canal.

Look at the larger picture: America had the money to create such a vast project because its citizens are coerced into paying the taxes to do it, not because a bunch of scientists and engineers were coerced into the project itself.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Look at the larger picture: America had the money to create such a vast project because its citizens are coerced into paying the taxes to do it, not because a bunch of scientists and engineers were coerced into the project itself.

The engineers are paid to do it, really, they're doing it for their own benefit rather than the benefit of the people (generally, I know people will take jobs in the hope of doing something great for others). It gets done and it is a way to do it, but not the only way.

[JCC]

If a community wants a bridge, it'll build a bridge. If a community wants to build a rocket, it'll build a rocket.

[HumanePain]

But again, in terms of history it does take a large, centralized nation to do it.

India just launched its first mission to the moon last week, 44 years after America. The space station is international because it takes enormous resources to sustain it. Mexico is a large nation but it does not go to the moon. It does not have the critical fiscal mass to do so.

[Saya]

Whats the point of going to the moon, really? India and Mexico do not have resources to waste on that. They have larger, more pressing problems to deal with, and really the space race was a dick waving contest with Russia rather than a quest for knowledge.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Saya

Whats the point of going to the moon, really? India and Mexico do not have resources to waste on that. They have larger, more pressing problems to deal with, and really the space race was a dick waving contest with Russia rather than a quest for knowledge.

To get back on track the point is not whether going to the moon is worthwhile or not, the point is that there are human projects whose scale is beyond the reach of anarchist collectives, that there are some goals that cannot be reached by them, and can only be attained by larger organizations that have forcibly extracted resources from their constituents.

[Saya]

And what I'm saying is, even if there's huge enormous projects an anarchist state isn't capable of, whats the problem? Our lives weren't signficantly improved because of the moon landing, and canals aren't that hard to build. Massive ones? Yes. But a city can do that by working together, doesn't necessarily need the whole country to come together for that.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

And you're telling me that if you had no bosses, no gods, no masters, no managers, someone that said "know what? I want to subjugate other people"
He could go up to you and tell you "hey, leave what you're doing; I want to be your dictator"
and you'd say "ok!"
....
?

God. Why don't you get it? Likeminded people in an Anarchist society would band together, breaking down the whole thing over time.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

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.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by JCC

Why the shit would a global community that's been living harmoniously without dictation simply let you declare yourself their overlord?

Basically, humans don't want government. We don't want to be controlled or told what to do, because as soon as we're told to do something we don't like, we dismantle the authority and create a new one that agrees with us, it happens constantly throughout history. Anarchy accepts that we want to rule ourselves.

If all people wanted to rule themselves, there wouldn't be Government. People crave power. Others crave protection. What's to stop one Anarchist town from killing another at whim? Do you really think people are smart enough to suddenly just love eachother? I mean, even Chimps kill eachother off over small things.

[Tam Li Hua]

I agree with Pinstripes.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

If all people wanted to rule themselves, there wouldn't be Government. People crave power. Others crave protection. What's to stop one Anarchist town from killing another at whim?

What's stopping them now? Why wouldn't other communities intervene if an anarchist community went into another and slaughtered everyone? Would you stand back and let something like that happen?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

God. Why don't you get it? Likeminded people in an Anarchist society would band together, breaking down the whole thing over time.

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!"
...
?

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Albert, I wouldn't even waste time jousting with JCC or Godslayer Jillian over the subject of anarchy. They're dead set on believing anarchist rhetoric, and will not be swayed.

For my part, I'm equally staunch in denying that what they believe to be anarchism can actually work. I don't think their arguments are sound, which is why I went to the mat to refute them in the "Gnet Templates" thread.

Whether or not they see any value in my argument is something you'd have to ask them, but they certainly don't seem to.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by JCC

If a community wants a bridge, it'll build a bridge. If a community wants to build a rocket, it'll build a rocket.

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?