Everyone says they don't like government right? Taxes, people in power they don't like, to many secrets kept from us, there are many reasons.
But what if there was no government? I'm talking about a State of Nature, where there is no government. The people make their own rules and ideas.
Considering human nature, this would be anarchy. Question is, which do you choose? Government, or State of Nature? And please, for the sake of argument, post why.
Anarchy does not mean confusion or disorder, it means that everybody knows what he has to do
Religious fanatic. "God told me that all this is mine and it is my right to take it no matter what (goes on to kill everyone because they don't do what they say)" That would work really well. All of you seem to be forgetting that humans are naturally selfish, we will not look out for each other or respect others if there was no repurcussions, it would be all out war. The only thing that seperates us from other animals is that we developed government. Now other animals have this, but at best they are tribes. That's still better than a free for all. Total anarchy would mean the deaths of billions, and i'm not exaggerating.
Lets not forget the people who are indirectly effected by said maniacs. Families, friends, mutual survival partners, etc., would probably kill the maniac relatively quick. In anarchy, the psychos have equal power to kill as the people they kill.
Nothing is stopping me from killing the person who killed my family, is there? --------------------------
In our current world, any large company would immediately take over government if it were ever abolished. I think we should stick to our current governments, unless you want Google to breathe down your neck 24/7.
It's called anarchy, and Somolia basically is in anarchy. Meanwhile, Somolia's been ranked the worst country for two years now. I'm sure it's not a coincidence.
Religious fanatic. "God told me that all this is mine and it is my right to take it no matter what (goes on to kill everyone because they don't do what they say)"
You're forgetting that "Do not kill" is a commandment. No good Christian would ever do that.
I was replying to TheDude. He seems to think that if a random country suddenly became Anarcist, everyone would be Christian. For some reason I seemed to have thought he mentioned God in there somewhere (no idea why, must be tired).
Lets not forget the people who are indirectly effected by said maniacs. Families, friends, mutual survival partners, etc., would probably kill the maniac relatively quick. In anarchy, the psychos have equal power to kill as the people they kill.
Nothing is stopping me from killing the person who killed my family, is there?
And you think that is a good way to live your life.
Also, the eye for an eye argument doesn't really apply here. The people doing the killing would not just be random psychos, but would probably be people seeking to take power by force. You probably wouldn't have the means to take justice into your own hands in that situation.
And you think that is a good way to live your life.
I never said that. I was just making a point.
Also, the eye for an eye argument doesn't really apply here. The people doing the killing would not just be random psychos, but would probably be people seeking to take power by force. You probably wouldn't have the means to take justice into your own hands in that situation.
An eye for an eye works just fine in this scenario. Many people are more than willing to kill someone who killed one or more of their dearly beloved. Even if it's one in ten people who are willing to kill someone in retribution, the twenty or so people who are affected as such would create at least 2 people willing to take revenge.
Some people are willing to kill over $20 even with capital punishment. That leaves me wondering what people are willing to do in a lawless and anarchic world.
An eye for an eye works just fine in this scenario. Many people are more than willing to kill someone who killed one or more of their dearly beloved. Even if it's one in ten people who are willing to kill someone in retribution, the twenty or so people who are affected as such would create at least 2 people willing to take revenge.
This problem is easily solved by the agressor, by him bringing only 2 or so friends.
Some people are willing to kill over $20 even with capital punishment. That leaves me wondering what people are willing to do in a lawless and anarchic world.
Which is exactly why the 'an eye for an eye' argument doesn't work. People who aren't able to kill will always be subject to those who can.
