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.
- 25 Replies
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.
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.
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.
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. ><
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.
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
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.
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 >_>
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.
But we already have. Most tabloids and news reports say it's over now. Is this good? It's good for the innocents that are left. We have already killed a lot of Iraqi innocent bystanders. THAT - is anarchy.
And yet. We can't simply pull out - at this point, we're there for political reasons more than anything.
That's true. The main reason we first went in ther was for oil and various resources. What are we doing now? Not taking it. We just keep continuing this anarchy and like you said, can't pull out because of many political views and standards by the US and many others.
It is possible but deffinitly not desribile. Nobody would live after 6 years of it.
Haha, yeah, but I think that it might be less then 6 years because with anarchy everybody would just go around fighing and killing each other, so I'll give it a couple months if it ever happens, which it won't.
Ok, if I am reading this correctly, you beleive we should have a weeker central government right?
The problem with splitting power through different people is that conflicts accure. Let us take the Cival War for example. The North wanted a strong central government. During the war, all the Northern States had to abide by the government's laws.
The South Lost the war because of the thing they were fighting for, a weak central government. Each state had it's own laws. Because of this, you would have troups from Arkansas and Luisianna fighting side by side in Arkansas. Now when the soldiers ran out of clothes and food, Arkansas would send their suplies only to the troops who were originaly from Arkansas and not the ones from Luisianna. This was because Arkansas wanted to keep all their remaining suplies to themselves since they were running low, but because there was no central government forcing Arkansas to suport troops from other states, there was this problem.
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Now you also mentioned how order will always assert itself. In the long run, most likely, but is it practicle? No.
The United States Government has hardly ever gotten into any of the countries afairs before WWI (the only affairs the government itself took seriously were wars).
Now let us take the Great Depression. The Great Depression was caused by many things, but cruddy bonds caused most of the damage. America's government saw that these bonds were ruining busnesses, but they did nothing about it because they thought that the problem would work itself out. Why did they think this? Because it has always worked itself out in the past. Our government failed to realize, untill too late, how with newer technology, greater involvment and care must take place.
Is Anarchy the way we should go? No. Is a weak central government the way to go? Not realy, it would only cause conflicts from state to state.
Thread is locked!