Controversial Subjects

Re: Anarchy vs. democracy

Anonymous — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:48:00 GMT

well ultimately without government there would be some sort of chaos, though democracy has its ups and downs, anarchy does too, since there are about 301 million people in the U.S. alone its going to be hard to control that without a government.

Re: Anarchy vs. democracy

Anonymous — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:52:57 GMT

I have heard theories about how America will fall into Anarchy and will turn into a third-world-country due to the second Great Depression which will happen in around three decades. Why can't our countries lazy fat couch potatos learn to ride a bike or something? Personally Im a Anarchist.

- The non-Conformist

Re: Anarchy vs. democracy

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:03:46 GMT

Your right and i understand completey but were not up to change and there really is no way to get it through peoples thick skulls. We care to much about power and mon ey and not enogh about the people who actullay need our help I hate when people sya that they didn't that person to win when in reallity most of them didn't vote you can't change it if you don't try or vote. people try and blame other people for whats happening to them but they can change if the want to. In this case money is power and to succed in the world you need power but you can't get power without money.

In my case i can't vote becuase im only 14 but see the thing is i don't see why not becuase i think the only way people should be able to vote is if they know whats going on or the issues. You don't want people who you don't like running your country but we can't not have a government becuase the world would fall to pieces becuase of all the bad people out there and not enough good people who really care. People wouldn't be able to be in peace and work things out for themselves becuase they both think they are right. Anarchy doesnt mean mass chaos and destruction it just means absance of government which includes rules and police officers people like that. Anarchy would be the perfect place if everyone could aggree and be nice but its not a perfect world so anarchy7 wouldn't work. The only way ddictatorship would work is if we had someone looking for peace and to keep the peace and not get to hung up in power. How i see it is that democracy is the same thing as dictatorship except in democracy the people get to vote but the same qulitys are there tghe people get to hung up in power and money instead of the issues they act fake just to get there peoples to like them.

Re: Anarchy vs. democracy

Cromagnon — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:17:51 GMT

The matter should have been presented as "Anarchy vs. Government".

I think there has to be a GOVERNMENT, but unfortunately it will always tend to be a corrupted one. There will always be an elite that doesn't not want others to change things in favor of the majority of the population. They don't want everybody to have what they have, what is the point of owning a Mercedes if everyone can have one? I personally think that a socialist democratic government is a better system, than the capitalist democracy, at least in the books, but there will always be individuals who screw things up for personal gain. The world isn't the perfect place yet, so it needs a group of people to have some control of the situation.

All main sources of living must be in the hands of the state (being 'the state' all of us): like energy, mass transportation, health care, food, shelter, water supply, communications (the basics), anything else can go to the hands of the private sector, the things you can do without. If the private sector of the economy can provide a better supply of the basic needs at a better price, well, welcome, but don't try to eliminate the 'state' from the competition, The 'state' is the only warranty we all have to prevent the abuse of the private sector.

A capitalist democracy as it is now, is (unfortunately) the government of the corrupted group of individuals driven by the utmost greed you've ever seen, a group of people ready to crash down any change in favor of the great majority of the population.

Re: Anarchy vs. democracy

Janissary — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:56:08 GMT

i dont know whether anarchism can really exist or not. Or can it be justified just on the paper.but as far as i know demochrasy doesnt protect the people's right.

looking to history, i see all the wars that have been done so far are for governments not for the welfare of public or people (although it has been said so). when goverments existed, the wars embarked on.I only deduce from this; goverments cause damages to people to nature and to world.

another aspect toward the matter, what could be worse than the situation that is happening now. which system could be worse than dying masses in Africa , being massacred people in Iraq and so on. Actually, I undestand that democrachy isnt as good as we have learnt in primary schools. Even if when i turn on TV and watch the news, i painfully understand that. i dont know anarchism provides us welfare but what i know is; demochrasy isnt demochrasy literally.and demochrasy is the worst one that mankind have ever had.Even worse than dark ages. the coin has two sides,in one side most people are proud of living in such an order where everyone has a right to vote and make their own decisions.In order to see beyond the so called facts you should be aware of suffering poulations from poverty and cruelty.

nevertheless, i completely agree that this is the fault of people but what the use of it , while there is no solution to it.Whatever system comes , human will be so.just the names change but not behaviours.

i may be so pessimistic but i hate the immediate order of the world.

regards

Re: Anarchy vs. democracy

Anonymous — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:44:15 GMT

Although there is a lot of evil in the world, I like to think that if you watch closely, you will see that the good outweighs the evil. It is for this reason that I am for anarchism.

Re: Anarchy vs. democracy

Anonymous — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 16:55:02 GMT

i have a new view on goverments tyhst combines anachrys main ideas and adds the better points of diffrent goverment types. what every goerment there isshould be willing to change to help the people it helps, i said helps not rules a goverment should never rule. if u want to hear more send me and email to <removed mod>

Re: Anarchy vs. democracy

Guest — Sun, 15 May 2005 20:53:21 GMT

how is it not a representative democracy? the majority wins. and besides anarchy is defined as the state where there is a lack of a government. humans have a tendency to follow rules. break them. etc. we need a structure. for example, do you think we can safely go through an road intersection without traffic lights? sure. but it will be chaotic. similarly, without a backbone to our society, our whole society will crumble to pieces.

Re: Anarchy vs. democracy

JMM — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:55:38 GMT

Anarchy can exist effectively... a form of Anarchy already does: The UN.
Aty the UN power and influence is decided effectively by balancing the various nations and seeing which one can convince the others to let it do as it proposes. This is a form of Anarchy. There is no overarching legislative body, no greater power to which appeals may be made. There are of course rules, but they are rules than can be altered, modified, broken, or strengthened according to the will of the nations involved. Get enough support and you'll get your way.

Not the romantic ideal of anarchy as being totally lawless and depending on the good will of its citizens... but anarchy none-the-less. It is certainly not a representative democracy.

Re: Anarchy vs. democracy

Guest — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:18:00 GMT

here is my bs. i am not directly replying to any previous posts, simply to the topic. in fact i did not read any posts. sorry if i am repetitive. these are my beliefs, these are not a representation of any political wing. i hope you find it enlightenting.

amarchy is an interesting subject. first of all it is a concept. that is all it is, a concept. we as a people cannot live without a form of government. we need the government to survive, not because of our own incompacity, but instead the greed and evil in our society.in an anarchist world, clans would be formed for protection to fight against pirate-like clans, meciouslessly killing, raping nad stealing. these people are around us every day, and despite all the wasted words about world peace and such, there is an animal if you will within us all. at our core we are animals, we kill living things to survive, and what it boils down to is that we need a government to keep honest people honest. although these problems exist, in their absence anarchy would be an excellent system, but unfortuenetly every system and philosophy ruled to its fullest extent fails. and this is why our government is failing. i have talked to many many people about the nov.2004 election (USA) and it seems that the country is in a divided concensious. we all agree that we are voting for the better of the two evils, but half of us see it slightly diffrently than the other half. our government has been run by career polititions, motivated by greed and power. this is because our polititions are so idealized by the media and it is such a well paid position. it really is a win win situation for these money hungary jackasses. they get to be prestigious, recognised, and respected and honored, and all the while they collect large sums of money from lobbyists. these lobbyists throw ridiciouls amounts of money to a canidate if he will vote for their cause. this is so totally wrong. canidates should vote for the people. this governemnt is afterall a government by and for the people. but our government is not by the people, it is "by" the men who have never worked hard a day in their lives, yet they are taxing us limitlessly when we struggle to survive, and this is hardly for the people. kerry is a perfect exaple of a man controlled by lobiests. he votes for things and then votes against them, or visa versa. he says anything that will get him money,but it seems that it was not enough (the money issue in politics i will discuss later) Bush is another perfect example, he is a very wealth man, due to his ancestors fortune and hard work, hardly a man who knows what it is like to be "the people". the government is just corrupt, plain and simple, and it will collapse. the reason it will is because it takes so much money to get to a place to change things. i would love to be able to change the system and get it to where it should be, but i am not alone. there are many people who desire this but do not have the financial means to do so. it takes millions of dollares to run for president or any other position, and should you lose you are in the hole. many people have solved this problem with lobbiests, but they fail to draw the line and end up being corrupt.

so far i have bashed anarchy and democracy, pointing out only a few of the many many errors in both systems. but it is easy to point out problems and provide no solutions. what needs to happen is, the government needs to be completely reformed, starting in each county and city moving up through every state and eventualy to the federal level. we need to evaluate every cost and every effect of every law. we need to evaluate every career politition and fire the ones who are corrupt. basically what it boils down to is, the government needs to lighten up, and take its ugly head out of its ass and the business of the public. it needs to stop being so emotionally driven, and let people do what they want with their lives. let every one deal with the cards they are dealt (kind of an existential "thrown" idea if you are familiar with sarte/camus/etc) we need to stop pampering the poor, stop rewarding the rich, stop killing the middle class, stop restricting business, stop killing the enviorment, get out of other countrys and deal with our own problems. i could go on for hours but it is pointless anyway, not enough people have the intilectual ability to comprehend anything figuritively. the world goes to college for financial reasons instead of intelectuall reasons. common sense is no longer very common unfortunetly.

Re: Anarchy vs. democracy

badasstronaut — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:44:07 GMT

An anarchist wouldn't want anarchy if he could get the provisions he needed. I once knew an anarchist who had a DOOR MAN! A DOOR MAN! That is ridiculous.

Re: Anarchy vs. democracy

NON CONFORMER — Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:29:59 GMT

The question of democracy, really lies on whether it is based on exercising the collective will of the people, or the will of political parties, highly influenced by the great economic powers, which do not give a toss about the voters. God save us from what the market dictators mean by "globalization"!

Anarchy, on the other hand, is not a utopia since these same powers seem to believe themselves entitled to act purely on their own convenience, thus posing the thesis of right wing anarchy, to which the opposing factor can only be the globalilzed individual right to be heard, and, implement his or her understanding of what we should aspire to, posing the thesis of a left wing anarchy.

After all the social argument does not depend on the philosophical debate, since both democracy and anarchy are a much too subjective terminology, which will leads nowhere, The fundamental issue is after all one of fair play, placing human issues, questionlessly above the vile inhuman profiteering that, at the present, rules and controls us all. Hope the best man will, one day, win.

Re: Anarchy vs. democracy

Swampy — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:21:11 GMT

Here in Lithuania we've got a typical government, made of mainly "socialdemocrats", who formally call themselves in this way. I personally think that all the parties are more or less driven by the urge to be in the parliament, not ideologically. But what role has ideology got in politics today?

Lithuania's economy is rather weak yet, but rapidly progressing. In fact, during the last year our economy has increased the most of the european countries. This is mainly because the working people are satisfied with a job of a lower salary than someone, say, from Sweden would be. That makes the economy increase, however such a way of increasing can easily cease if people are no longer satisfied with a low salary. Additionally, we expect some changes in our development with the help of EU. (The three baltic states have joined the EU not so long ago.)

Re: Anarchy vs. democracy

Hoogard — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:24:02 GMT

Hello. This will be my first post on this forum.

This is very interresting about media increasing it's cover of violence. In Bowling for Columbine Michael Moore says that violence in the US has decreased over the last years while the medias coverage of it has increased with several hundred percent.

Anyway it's very interresting to follow this debate. I live myself in sweden which has been dominated by the social democrats almost completly the last 50 years. A funny thing happened when i watched a presidental debate between George W Bush and John Kerry was that Bush tried to make Kerry look like a bad guy cause he was likely to raise the taxes.
Here in sweden it's the opposite. Anyone wishing to lower the taxes are the bad guys.

Here in sweden we have, much like in Canada, a well developed social caretaking. We have high taxes but on the other hand, highet studies and most medical care ar free, amongst other things.

It seems like there are many people here from many countries. It will be interresting to see how it's like in your countries.

Re: Anarchy vs. democracy

Guest — Sun, 12 Dec 2004 11:31:10 GMT

Guest, it's normally the bad stuff that gets shown on the news, but that shouldn't fool you into believing that society is evil. Our world, believe it or not, is made up mostly of good people.

just watch the news, travel the world, look at how we are killing ourselves and our lands. we rape the world without caring.the ones who do care, are unable to take action out of fear of failure

I'm sorry but that is complete and utter nonsense. There are many people out there who take care of the environment, donate money to the poor, do volunteer work etc. etc.