Time for anarchy... - The Corporation (2004) Discussion

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

Yeah um Anarchy dosen't exist. It's just a theory/philosophy.

reply

[–] asher27 15 years ago

anarchy has existed - it existed in spain for a while in ww2

its also existed in other places as well, its late so i cant think of them off the top of my head but i most certainly could find them if i looked it up.

anarchy would be hard to make last - from chaos comes order. i like the theory, but like all theories it is utopian and will not work in reality. a mix of reality and theory (like all systems of governing and economics) might work however.

reply

[–] CapitalistDog 15 years ago

Great insight, asher.

I personally believe there is a need for a VERY small limited form of government, very similar to what the founders of the US constitution intended.

Anarchy almost immediately converts into a dictatorship or oligarchy, but a constitutional republic lasts as long as the people hold their leaders accountable. Unfortunately that's not the case today, politicians blatantly disregard the constitution even after swearing an oath.

The point is, Anarchy is representative to what ALL humans want, Personal Liberty, but it's just not possible to attain without a little bit of law, protecting the rights and liberties of each individual person.

reply

[–] CapitalistDog 15 years ago

Great insight, asher.

I personally believe there is a need for a VERY small limited form of government, very similar to what the founders of the US constitution intended.

Anarchy almost immediately converts into a dictatorship or oligarchy, but a constitutional republic lasts as long as the people hold their leaders accountable. Unfortunately that's not the case today, politicians blatantly disregard the constitution even after swearing an oath.

The point is, Anarchy is representative to what ALL humans want, Personal Liberty, but it's just not possible to attain without a little bit of law, protecting the rights and liberties of each individual person.

reply

[–] CapitalistDog 15 years ago

Great insight, asher.

I personally believe there is a need for a VERY small limited form of government, very similar to what the founders of the US constitution intended.

Anarchy almost immediately converts into a dictatorship or oligarchy, but a constitutional republic lasts as long as the people hold their leaders accountable. Unfortunately that's not the case today, politicians blatantly disregard the constitution even after swearing an oath.

The point is, Anarchy is representative to what ALL humans want, Personal Liberty, but it's just not possible to attain without a little bit of law, protecting the rights and liberties of each individual person.

reply

[–] super180 16 years ago

Hmmm.. Corporate Tyranny or Socialist State Tyranny? Because that's exactly what follows an anarchist movement, you do know that right?

reply

[–] arnoldstrong-1 16 years ago

If there was anarchy, you probably wouldn´t even survive for one week, you dip s h i t

reply

[–] robobeatnik 16 years ago

If you've never read a single book about anarchist movements, history or theory, then you have NO VALID *beep* OPINION ABOUT ANARCHISM.

"Do you really think it's cool to hit the sauce with a bun in the oven?"

reply

[–] andy_2201ca 15 years ago

You're wrong.

reply

[–] incu-ry9 14 years ago

The problem with Anarchy is the fact that the people who want it actually could handle themselves without any rules, laws, or people watching what they do, and everyone else could not. Most people (sadly) need a system of rules, be it federal or religious, to let them know what they can and can't do and what is acceptable and what is not. So, yes, if we eradicated everyone else who couldn't handle living in a world without rules, Anarchy may work. However, I don't see that happening at any point and Democracy seems to me to be the best system of government--REAL Democracy...not the Democracy controlled by the corporations.

reply

[–] liutenantsalt 14 years ago

>>The problem with Anarchy is the fact that the people who want it actually could handle themselves without any rules, laws, or people watching what they do, and everyone else could not. <<

Really? Cuz if you actually pay attention, it's obvious that the advocates of communism masquerading as anarchy are often violent sociopaths who think nothing of using violence and terror against innocent as a way of spreading their totalitarian message, IE; the RAF.

reply

[–] Peter-Stirling 15 years ago

Yes socialism is another word for communism which synonymous with anarchy, you clearly up to date with the neocon propaganda. It's the red menace and any reasoned thought on the topic will result in speaking Russian and the removal of the 'freedom' you currently have. Reality check: When the neocons allowed the police to hold people without charge for indefinite periods as well as the ability to wiretap any phone and started torturing it's prisoners, any freedom you thought you had is under heavy fire. Neocon capitalism has shown it's oppressive nature.

Socialism on the other hand empowers the people, it involves high taxes and high quality public services. So you still have the right to work hard and earn extra money. But everyone has access to good free healthcare, good free education, good cheap public transport. These are things everyone can benifit from and by pooling our money and working together we can achieve a far *more* efficient use of the money.

I know blind fear is the trademark of a true patriot these days, but a getting informed and forming an independent viewpoint for what is best for your country is far more patriotic in my eyes.

reply

[–] liutenantsalt 14 years ago

>>Reality check: When the neocons allowed the police to hold people without charge for indefinite periods as well as the ability to wiretap any phone and started torturing it's prisoners, any freedom you thought you had is under heavy fire.<<

REALITY CHECK: Every example you just cited has been a CORE fundamental of every single solitary Socialist/Communist controlled government on the planet.

>>Socialism on the other hand empowers the people, it involves high taxes and high quality public services. <<

Yeah, that's the lie they feed you in order to convince thge pbulic to consensually surrender all personal liberty to an all-powerful government, anyway.

>>I know blind fear is the trademark of a true patriot these days, but a getting informed and forming an independent viewpoint for what is best for your country is far more patriotic in my eyes. <<

So then why don't you actually TRY it sometime, instead of just spreading the same *beep* fearmongering hysteria we've heard from every totalitarian *beep* from Lenin to Castro?

reply

[–] paulwshaffer 16 years ago

Thank you Tyler Durden :)

reply

[–] bwfc1975 16 years ago

No need to SHOUT!!

It is time for Liberal Socialism not Anarchism or Communism.
Anarchism results in Communism and Communism results in totalitarianism.

reply

[–] Sintalk 14 years ago

Why do people think they know everything when clearly they have never even opened a book on the subject.Anarchism has NOTHING to do with State Communism as it was inforced in the USSR and the eastern block.Most anarchists were perscuted and shot in the USSR.
And just so you know Anarchy doesn't mean absence of laws.It means that every kind of power has to be justified.It means living by the laws the people create for specific reasons.
Read a *beep* book or don't try to pass your jaded uneducated opinions as true.

reply

[–] HipsterBro 12 years ago

"Anarchy doesn't mean absence of laws. It means that every kind of power has to be justified."

Bump

Don't knock masturbation! It's sex with someone I love.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] seventhseal_3 15 years ago

*beep* capitalism

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kevint1818 14 years ago

OP...If you're gonna quote Fight Club and pretend it's your own informed ALL CAPS POST...at least get the quote right. Idiot.

--------------------
IF you're free you'll NEVER see the walls

reply