Politics Explained

[karmazon]

Anarchy is the only way to go, because it is survival of the fittest.

In the way things are now its just the person with the most weapons. Don't matter how many people you can kill with your bare hands if some pilot drops a few bombs on your town you are screwed.

You mean country with the most weapons? Cause when was the last time a person acting alone dropped a bomb on a town ?

No, I doubt in anarchy that countries will be fighting each other, it will be local people fighting each other for control of their little plot of land. All it takes is some military pilot to be the first to hop in his jet and drop some bombs. That is if the town has a base in or near it. Other then that its probably going to be the one with the most people that are loyal to him/her to take control.

What would make a military pilot drop a bomb on a city full of people...

I have no clue

I noticed.

[Graham]

Anarchy is the only way to go, because it is survival of the fittest.

In the way things are now its just the person with the most weapons. Don't matter how many people you can kill with your bare hands if some pilot drops a few bombs on your town you are screwed.

You mean country with the most weapons? Cause when was the last time a person acting alone dropped a bomb on a town ?

No, I doubt in anarchy that countries will be fighting each other, it will be local people fighting each other for control of their little plot of land. All it takes is some military pilot to be the first to hop in his jet and drop some bombs. That is if the town has a base in or near it. Other then that its probably going to be the one with the most people that are loyal to him/her to take control.

What would make a military pilot drop a bomb on a city full of people...

I have no clue

I noticed.

Kid you are the one that thinks anarchy is great. Survival of the fittest... yeah right. Anarchy is just opportunism at its worst.

[Smegma]

Kid you are the one that thinks anarchy is great. Survival of the fittest... yeah right. Anarchy is just opportunism at its worst.

Thats what survival of the fittest is!

[LtKillroy]

Anarchy is impossible becuase there is strength in numbers, and people would naturally seek to make alliances so it is easier to live. Hence government.

[karmazon]

Anarchy is impossible becuase there is strength in numbers, and people would naturally seek to make alliances so it is easier to live. Hence government.

Anarchy has existed throughout human history, so what the hell are you talking about?

Date Posted: August 25, 2007, 02:26:15 PM

Anarchy is the only way to go, because it is survival of the fittest.

In the way things are now its just the person with the most weapons. Don't matter how many people you can kill with your bare hands if some pilot drops a few bombs on your town you are screwed.

You mean country with the most weapons? Cause when was the last time a person acting alone dropped a bomb on a town ?

No, I doubt in anarchy that countries will be fighting each other, it will be local people fighting each other for control of their little plot of land. All it takes is some military pilot to be the first to hop in his jet and drop some bombs. That is if the town has a base in or near it. Other then that its probably going to be the one with the most people that are loyal to him/her to take control.

What would make a military pilot drop a bomb on a city full of people...

I have no clue

I noticed.

Kid you are the one that thinks anarchy is great. Survival of the fittest... yeah right. Anarchy is just opportunism at its worst.

Don't hate on me kid, because you're not fit.

[Graham]

Don't hate on me kid, because you're not fit.

This isn't about being fit. This is about flawed ideals.

[Smegma]

Anarchy is impossible becuase there is strength in numbers, and people would naturally seek to make alliances so it is easier to live. Hence government.

You can have bodies of people working for a common good in anarchy.

[LtKillroy]

Anarchy is impossible becuase there is strength in numbers, and people would naturally seek to make alliances so it is easier to live. Hence government.

You can have bodies of people working for a common good in anarchy.

Uhh, then it's not anarchy. If there are rules like at all, it is not a lawless, governmentless society, therefore not anarchy. Anarchies also always go back to government. THere hasn't been a sustained anarchy for a really long time.

[Smegma]

Anarchy is impossible becuase there is strength in numbers, and people would naturally seek to make alliances so it is easier to live. Hence government.

You can have bodies of people working for a common good in anarchy.

Uhh, then it's not anarchy. If there are rules like at all, it is not a lawless, governmentless society, therefore not anarchy. Anarchies also always go back to government. THere hasn't been a sustained anarchy for a really long time.

Who said their are rules. Anarchy is the LACK of government, everyone has their own personal freedoms. If a select group of people want to work together, thats THEIR choice, they aren't abiding any laws.

[Blazing Tiger]

Without the cooperation and formed communities of man (instead of everyone vs. everyone or small group vs. small group) we would still be somewhere in the Stone Age or wiped out by disease.

The words "Poli" and "tics" in Latin translates to "Many bloodsucking creatures".

[karmazon]

Anarchy is impossible becuase there is strength in numbers, and people would naturally seek to make alliances so it is easier to live. Hence government.

You can have bodies of people working for a common good in anarchy.

Uhh, then it's not anarchy. If there are rules like at all, it is not a lawless, governmentless society, therefore not anarchy. Anarchies also always go back to government. THere hasn't been a sustained anarchy for a really long time.

Anarchy means without rulers, not without order.

[Smegma]

The words "Poli" and "tics" in Latin translates to "Many bloodsucking creatures". Smiley

Yea, that was funny when it never was.

[Brock]

Anarchy is essentially impossible.  People naturally form into groups and people naturally assume a leader.

Plus, if there was anarchy, there would no human progress, EVER.  Because everyone would be fighting over the essentials: water, food, land, etc.

[Smegma]

Anarchy is essentially impossible.  People naturally form into groups and people naturally assume a leader.

Plus, if there was anarchy, there would no human progress, EVER.  Because everyone would be fighting over the essentials: water, food, land, etc.

Anarchy =/= no society. Its just no defined laws and everyone is purely free.

[Blazing Tiger]

Anarchy is essentially impossible.  People naturally form into groups and people naturally assume a leader.

Plus, if there was anarchy, there would no human progress, EVER.  Because everyone would be fighting over the essentials: water, food, land, etc.

Anarchy =/= no society. Its just no defined laws and everyone is purely free.

That doesn't make any sense.

[Smegma]

Umm, yes it does. A society doesn't need to have laws.

[Shivorken]

Umm, yes it does. A society doesn't need to have laws.

Which is why that society will inevitably fail.

[Brock]

*sigh*

If people are "purely free" they are "free" to do whatever they want.  Murder, rape, steal, invade other people's domains.  If there are no rules to stop them, people can do anything they want, no matter how unbelievably wrong it may be.

A society does need some kind of BASIC rules.

[Vltava]

My grandma called; she wants her chain mail back.

[SirJamesaford]

"If i had my way, I'd have all of them shot" - roger waters

That basically sums up the anarchy debate....anarchy = baaaaaad idea

EDIT: "give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up" - roger waters