Page 2 of 3
Re: Politics: Debate
Posted:
Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:29 pmby que13x
OH YOU ARE SO RADICAL!!*sarcasm*
You are actually a libertarian and should identify yourself as such. There are many out there like youself such as Congressman Ron Paul. He runs under the Republican banner or he wouldn't get taken seriously at all.
Anarchy, even limited anarchy sill implies some chaotic lawlessness. Anarchy itself is a transitional form of government because some "strong man" inevitably takes over and rules by force.
Re: Politics: Debate
Posted:
Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:55 pmby Puncharger
I will be completely honest in saying that I have no idea of anything in the politics world, but I would assume the US's is okay.
Re: Politics: Debate
Posted:
Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:37 pmby irishdragon85
que13x wrote:Anarchy, even limited anarchy sill implies some chaotic lawlessness. Anarchy itself is a transitional form of government because some "strong man" inevitably takes over and rules by force.
are you sure about that? need i remind you that at one point in time anarchy was a real form of government. Before Cesar was named Tyrant of the Roman Republic the form of government they used was Anarchy. Crimes were still punished although the crime rate was extremely high then add that to the fact that they were constantly at war it's understandable how people can believe that.
Re: Politics: Debate
Posted:
Tue Dec 28, 2010 4:18 pmby que13x
I am positive. Even you stated about the high crime rate until the Caesars took over hence the strongman that brings "stability".
Re: Politics: Debate
Posted:
Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:30 pmby crait
There is no such thing as anarchy.
Even whenever there was supposedly no people around (the dinosaur ages) there was this thing called survival of the fittest. People always have rules that oppress them, even if they are the rules of nature. If I'm bigger than you, I'm going to take your stuff. Savvy?
Re: Politics: Debate
Posted:
Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:37 pmby Kanadier
crait wrote:There is no such thing as anarchy.
Even whenever there was supposedly no people around (the dinosaur ages) there was this thing called survival of the fittest. People always have rules that oppress them, even if they are the rules of nature. If I'm bigger than you, I'm going to take your stuff. Savvy?
So hand over the chicken crait!
Re: Politics: Debate
Posted:
Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:54 amby que13x
crait wrote:There is no such thing as anarchy.
Even whenever there was supposedly no people around (the dinosaur ages) there was this thing called survival of the fittest. People always have rules that oppress them, even if they are the rules of nature. If I'm bigger than you, I'm going to take your stuff. Savvy?
LOL!!
I like how you deny the existence of Anarchy then define and give a perfect example of it "
If I'm bigger than you, I'm going to take your stuff" LOL!!
Like I was saying, under those conditions someone always rises above the rest to provide security be it a great warrior or a sheriff whatever. Anarchy usually leads to Despotism because the person providing security ends up making the rules and gaining power above everyone else.
Any way you slice it, anarchy exists and it is transitional; end of story.
Re: Politics: Debate
Posted:
Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:49 amby crait
What about in all those zombie movies? The people who are still alive join up and work things out and make a plan. That's a form of government because they are governing.
Even though there are no laws, is this anarchy? I think not.
Re: Politics: Debate
Posted:
Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:34 amby que13x
In the Zombie example that you have given you are describing people temporarily banding together to oppose a common threat, such as with a type of militia, posse or even a lynch mob to cite extreme examples. It's hardly a government though it may be well organized, because once the threat is gone the group dissolves when people return to life as usual, whatever that may have been.
Re: Politics: Debate
Posted:
Wed Dec 29, 2010 11:29 amby crait
Yeah, but if/when they disband, they are gonna go back to having laws as usual.
See, no anarchy.
Re: Politics: Debate
Posted:
Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:11 pmby irishdragon85
crait wrote:Yeah, but if/when they disband, they are gonna go back to having laws as usual.
See, no anarchy.
who says they do?
i mean think about it in the Event of a Zombie Apocalypse who says that society wouldn't go back to the way things were? i know me personally if i was one of the survivors of a Zombie Apocalypse it would change me.
Re: Politics: Debate
Posted:
Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:25 pmby crait
Right. If you look at my statement, I said, "if/when." Meaning that people may or may not disband.Thy could stay together.
Re: Politics: Debate
Posted:
Wed Dec 29, 2010 2:24 pmby DarkPacMan77
que13x wrote:In the Zombie example
Why even address that example? lol! Zombies? I thought this was a debate on politics.
-DarkPacMan77-
Re: Politics: Debate
Posted:
Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:41 pmby crait
I feel the next step in this discussion is going to be the Nazi zombies...
Re: Politics: Debate
Posted:
Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:09 pmby que13x
crait wrote:I feel the next step in this discussion is going to be the Nazi zombies...
You are really spamming up the thread now. I am disappointed and expected better of you.