Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Anarchy - utter failure.

Thread Locked

Posted Apr 2, '08 at 10:08pm

Megamickel

Megamickel

946 posts

Anarchy is a failed concept - it will never actually work out. Example: The people have an uprising and eliminate the established laws. What then? People can't get along. Militant groups around the country rise up. Some with good ideals, some with bad. Eventually, a small number of people will have control of vast regions. Wars will erupt around the country, and one person or one group could eventually take power through force. My bet on the one person or group that takes power is the original catalyst behind the entire movement to overthrow government. Ironic, isn't it? Anarchy fails hard, because order WILL assert itself, and the chaos will continue to fight against order. The two are so intertwined that to attempt to eliminate one simply cannot happen - order cannot exist without chaos, and chaos cannot exist without order. Without one, the other simply would not be. Would order be order if there were no chaos? No. And the same holds true for chaos.

 

Posted Apr 2, '08 at 10:16pm

Armed_Blade

Armed_Blade

1,564 posts

Meh. I'm against that. Because, you see, if what you say isn't everywhere. People have an uprising and eliminate the laws they dont' like. The only way thats possible if enough people want that to happen, and that has to be a bunch of people. Either they kill each other or countries split and they make their ideas. If militant groups rise up, they will fight, but they can't hurt the turntable [The people]. Or, all life will cease :P. And usually, yes, the people that want the change are usually strong enough to make that change. Or else the change wouldn't have been enough to throw a country over. So, Anarchy doesn't fail, it just causes one heck of a problem.

 

Posted Apr 2, '08 at 10:18pm

DaKurlzz

DaKurlzz

28 posts

You're saying Anarchy doesn't fail, Armed? SAy it wasn't just the democrat and republican parties running. SAy we had an anarchist running. Do you know what would happen if he got elected? Exactly what anarchy is. Total chaos. The U.S.A would be a terrible mess, un-organized, and other countries would think, if they already don't, that we don't know what we are doing.

 

Posted Apr 2, '08 at 10:25pm

Megamickel

Megamickel

946 posts

But the people that want the change are usually supported by the militant groups - so that they CAN rise and take power. Once anarchy is in place, there is no organized system for stopping such rises. Small, well-organized groups will rise up and take power, slowly gaining more influence and controlling more and more area.

 

Posted Apr 2, '08 at 10:30pm

Armed_Blade

Armed_Blade

1,564 posts

If you gain influence, you gain a right idea. Something that follows everyones belief and morals.

I'm not saying an ANARCHIST is right. As he would break the country. I'm saying the idea of Anarchy happening is.

unless were all ignorant fools that will go along with a crazy anarchist idea. [And thankfully America isn't completely controlled by the media, today.].
Either its good anarchy [WW2, example: Adolf hitler rises up, even though someone else did the whole destroy country part for him, starts a war, and in the end you've got new countries. anarchy was in place, stopped, and the new groups took command of their government they way they wanted.

Its a bad example, and with a few flaws, but the Europe thing on wiki confused the crap out of me. ><

 

Posted Apr 2, '08 at 10:33pm

Megamickel

Megamickel

946 posts

Anarchy can have good results, but it in itself is such a failed concept - it cannot exist for any length of time before order WILL assert itself.

 

Posted Apr 2, '08 at 10:38pm

Armed_Blade

Armed_Blade

1,564 posts

Then order is utter failure, because Order means that everything must stay in its proper place running effeciently. And with the world always changing, someone will want a fix. Then Order will be crying. And then you get some reform movement of Anarchy again.
Order can only asser itself through and by the people, so any concept that doesn't allow change or overthrowing a country by force won't work. As there like.. opposites living with each other. xP

 

Posted Apr 2, '08 at 10:40pm

DaKurlzz

DaKurlzz

28 posts

Aha, but with order, we can change but just go back the way it was. Say like with Vietnam. We had people dying, families getting broken apart, and people saying the war should end. Where are we now? The Iraq War. Whats happening? The exact same thing, except possibly a larger scale of slaughter. I don't want to call it anarchy, and not the best example of order, but it is. Think about it. Things could be even worse with change and anarchy.

 

Posted Apr 2, '08 at 10:41pm

Megamickel

Megamickel

946 posts

Order and chaos will always exist, intertwined with each other. I didn't say chaos wouldn't exist, nor did I say order would completely eliminate chaos - only that anarchy will not, can not exist for a long time. Chaos simply cannot hold order at bay.

Which is why I play druid in D&D >_>

 

Posted Apr 2, '08 at 10:45pm

Armed_Blade

Armed_Blade

1,564 posts

You must learn how to controll Iraqi's. Most of the slaughter in Iraq is innocents. So, in the end, unless the whole country converts terrorists I dont' tihnk we'll get to this horror.