ForumsWEPRAnarchism

133 11954
_Spaz_
offline
_Spaz_
143 posts
200

I really do not think people understand what Anarchism is. I am an Anarchist myself and it is saddening to hear that people think that Anarchy is "Chaos" and "Disorder" when in reality it is the opposite. I think people have grown so attached to their governments that they depend on them to run their lives and without it there will be chaos. That's just chaos, not Anarchy. Anarchy is peace and order. Government is violence. Anyone care to add to this?
*If you are going to argue this please do not state the fact that it can not work. That is a lame argument and needs to be backed up with evidence and proof.
Thanks

  • 133 Replies
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,830 posts
415

i guess the somalian pirates

(np on the 1st.)

Even the worst of the worst criminal organisations have a code of conduct.
They simply don't do somethings.
EnigmaX
offline
EnigmaX
101 posts
30

i guess the somalian pirates


I always thought they were funded by warlords. The problem is that you can't have any leader in anarchy, or else it isn't anarchy. Unless you could somehow have some system of top-to-bottom decision making that was somehow not a government.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

I always thought they were funded by warlords. The problem is that you can't have any leader in anarchy, or else it isn't anarchy. Unless you could somehow have some system of top-to-bottom decision making that was somehow not a government.

many pirates are fishers who lost their job to the mass fishing of western countries. they were already working together when they were fishers. some started to steal those ships. wich then was escalated to more and more fishers doing so. there wasn't any "warlords"
these pirates have then grouped and are now just a army that has bonds whit the taliban. and uganda is the only country fighting them.

like i said befor, i'm not sure if we can call them anarchist. i guess some are and some are not. the last 10 year it really has grown.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,369 posts
24,350

The pirates don't aim for a stateless society. They're only concern is money or material gains.

Completely different from actual anarchists.

EnigmaX
offline
EnigmaX
101 posts
30

I suppose I was thinking of the leaders of the somali pirates as warlords. I dunno.

And isn't the term "stateless society" a bit of an oxymoron?

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,369 posts
24,350

No it isn't an oxymoron. Society is just a term for a group of related people, or such a group in the same geographical space, sharing a distinctive culture and relation. There were human societies existing before anything like the State was first thought of, because State refers to an organized political community under a government.

BritHennerz
offline
BritHennerz
408 posts
1,505

As an idea, anarchy may seem like a good thing; everyone working together, not lead, with a common goal of a community. But others will always try to exploit that, just look at Somalia, no government so no one can control the pirates.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

they aint anarchists then.

however they need more media attention. it's a thread for nearly all nations. and only 1 of them is really fighting. they don't even have any flighing weapons. 1 aircraft carrier would fix allot of it. then give somaliland jurisdiction over it and fund them. could be all done within 10 year.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,718 posts
20,765

I think the individualistic nature of many humans, especially in industrial countries, prevent the functioning of a truly anarchistic society. Too many sacrifices would have to be made, too many possibilities to take advantage of it. From a social evolution standpoint, it's a strategy that easily gets out-selected and thus won't establish any time soon.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,369 posts
24,350

they aint anarchists then.

however they need more media attention. it's a thread for nearly all nations. and only 1 of them is really fighting. they don't even have any flighing weapons. 1 aircraft carrier would fix allot of it. then give somaliland jurisdiction over it and fund them. could be all done within 10 year.


No it's not as simple as people think it is. It's not as simple as bombing bases, because such bases are often in urban areas, the complexity of warlord relations, the weakness of the central government which can't even control Moghadishu properly. Above all, the humanitarian situation that can't be fixed just through stop gap measures of food aid. Also, unwillingness of foreign publics to send in troops.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

it's not as simple as people think it is. It's not as simple as bombing bases, because such bases are often in urban areas,


it's not like afghanistan. in this war there is a real frontline.

the weakness of the central government which can't even control Moghadishu properly.

thats why we should give jurisdiction to somaliland.
who is doing good for itself. but is not even internationally acknowledge yet.

the humanitarian situation that can't be fixed just through stop gap measures of food aid. Also, unwillingness of foreign publics to send in troops.

thats not what i mend whit fund them.
i mend fund them like the marshall plan. but whit many more countrys. because we all will profit from a stable somalia.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,369 posts
24,350

it's not like afghanistan. in this war there is a real frontline.


If we've learnt anything from Black Hawk Down, and the UN mission in the 1990s, it's no, front lines are ill defined.

thats why we should give jurisdiction to somaliland.
who is doing good for itself. but is not even internationally acknowledge yet.


It's not your call to divide up a sovereign nation. Would you like it if the Netherlands is arbitrarily split up by international intervention?

i mend fund them like the marshall plan. but whit many more countrys. because we all will profit from a stable somalia.


The rest of the world needs some MP of its own.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

front lines are ill defined.


ive seen a docu about the front line last week. i will seek if i can find it on i-net and in english for you

It's not your call to divide up a sovereign nation. Would you like it if the Netherlands is arbitrarily split up by international intervention?


somaliland is not a nation. and i don't argue that it should be. (it would be good tho) what i argue for is that the incapable government of somalia should be striped of it's powers and given to the somaliland government. the shape of the country will stay the same and nothing gets divided (it's already divided now but w/e) it will only change the government system. what would go very smooth as the new government does already exists and is working.

The rest of the world needs some MP of its own.

the marshall plan was to rebuild europe.
does the rest of the world need to rebuild?
does somalia need to be rebuild?
and if you mean the whole world is in debt. then the best thing would be to just forget it all and start over.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,369 posts
24,350

ive seen a docu about the front line last week. i will seek if i can find it on i-net and in english for you


If it's the al shahab and Kenyan front line, even then it's fuzzy. Al shahab still
controls swathes of the countryside even after it's last major port fell last week, yet no one knows where this area of control extends to.


somaliland is not a nation. and i don't argue that it should be. (it would be good tho) what i argue for is that the incapable government of somalia should be striped of it's powers and given to the somaliland government. the shape of the country will stay the same and nothing gets divided (it's already divided now but w/e) it will only change the government system. what would go very smooth as the new government does already exists and is working.


The Somaliland government has no wish to control the whole of Somalia, being a separatist movement at it's roots, so it would be pointless. And it would go against the year long mission of the UN and the AU in the capital, which is to prop the central government up.

the marshall plan was to rebuild europe.
does the rest of the world need to rebuild?
does somalia need to be rebuild?
and if you mean the whole world is in debt. then the best thing would be to just forget it all and start over.


This is incredibly short sighted. Which creditor would allow a country to forfeit it's loans, essentially giving it money? No government will. China is owed billions by the USA, would you think China is willing to allow the US to go scot free?

The Marshall Plan required a huge financial backer, yet no one today is capable of rescuing a continent, let alone the world.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

If it's the al shahab and Kenyan front line, even then it's fuzzy. Al shahab still
controls swathes of the countryside even after it's last major port fell last week, yet no one knows where this area of control extends to.


no it was in somalia iself by uganda. (uganda does not border somalia)
they have started in somaliland and are going down. trying to spread the pirates from the ME.

The Somaliland government has no wish to control the whole of Somalia,

somaliland has the wish that their faily in somalia will get a better, less violent life. if they could help whit that. they sure want to.

it would go against the year long mission of the UN and the AU in the capital, which is to prop the central government up

so? it's not the 1st time missions are done for nothing.
the somalian "government" is incapable. why try to fix that if there is already a alternative government existing?

The Marshall Plan required a huge financial backer, yet no one today is capable of rescuing a continent, let alone the world.


your missing the point here.
i didn't say (like whit the marshall plan) that 1 country needs to pay for it.
i said that the UN, AU nations and other countrys that will profit from a stable somalia. need to fund it. thats over 70 countrys.
so the bill can be spread over 70 nations.

and in the long run it will cost less then to protect the ships and only go past it in convoy.
that costs us billions per year.
Showing 106-120 of 133