Is Anarchy in the USA Possible?

[JacobEzra]

Originally Posted by Revoltingest

Anarchy?
Here?
Not in a country full of sheep clamoring for more security & whining about needing more regulation of their lives.

Yeah, but I was thinking more along the lines of....

Anarchy?
Here?
Not in a country with such violence taking part in our streets. 31 murdered so far in one month, thats not even over. Why the hell would anyone want to vote for Anarchy, and allow these murderers to run free? Its bad enough the Judges feel the need to lower the damn bail. They should've not even given a bail. Especially when the man in question is there for murder, with a separate gun charge AND when given a lowered bail, went a shot a women 4 times for talking to police.

Yeah, Anarchy? No thanks. There is enough trouble WITH government.

[The Sum of Awe]

Originally Posted by JacobEzra

Yeah, but I was thinking more along the lines of....

Anarchy?
Here?
Not in a country with such violence taking part in our streets. 31 murdered so far in one month, thats not even over. Why the hell would anyone want to vote for Anarchy, and allow these murderers to run free? Its bad enough the Judges feel the need to lower the damn bail. They should've not even given a bail. Especially when the man in question is there for murder, with a separate gun charge AND when given a lowered bail, went a shot a women 4 times for talking to police.

Yeah, Anarchy? No thanks. There is enough trouble WITH government.

Well I technically support anarchy, but since this is not a debate thread I can't respond to this.

[Reptillian]

Originally Posted by The Sum of Awe

Well I technically support anarchy, but since this is not a debate thread I can't respond to this.

Theres a difference between debate and discussion. If you've got some reasoning in favor of anarchy, I say post it. We can have a reasoned discussion without debate. I've been watching this thread from the shadows with some interest.

[The Sum of Awe]

Originally Posted by Reptillian

Theres a difference between debate and discussion. If you've got some reasoning in favor of anarchy, I say post it. We can have a reasoned discussion without debate. I've been watching this thread from the shadows with some interest.

Good point

I'll begin by saying, I think we're becoming more and more into realization that there are a lot of things illegal in some places that don't have to be: gay marriage, abortion, etc.

There can't, in fact, be a reasoning on whether an action is good or bad, thus there cannot be accurate laws. Why some people say "communism doesn't work" is just because their view of "works" is different than the communist's.

Therefore, because there is no accurate law, there is no need for a government or any system in control.

[JacobEzra]

Originally Posted by The Sum of Awe

Good point

I'll begin by saying, I think we're becoming more and more into realization that there are a lot of things illegal in some places that don't have to be: gay marriage, abortion, etc.

There can't, in fact, be a reasoning on whether an action is good or bad, thus there cannot be accurate laws. Why some people say "communism doesn't work" is just because their view of "works" is different than the communist's.

Therefore, because there is no accurate law, there is no need for a government or any system in control.

Would "no accurate law" include laws against murder, rape and theft? Arson, molestation, kidnapping? Robbery?

My friend, the point I was making is, if wwe can't be safe from violence with laws and police and prison, how much worse will it be when there are no consequences? Itl turn to old days when vendettas were taken and the cycle of violence will worsen because it'll be the only justice.

When people in my city are so apathetic that they will just walk or watch a man get beaten to death, without even calling the police, what does that say? Apathy is bad enough alone. Add anarchy, all civility will be lost.

[methylatedghosts]

I don't honestly think there is a country on this planet that is currently socially advanced (enlightened?) enough where anarchy would work.

I can envision a model where it would work, but that would be quite some time in future. It would happen in a time and place where government was no longer needed, because we all did "the right thing" anyway.

And by "the right thing" I mean

no crime, through mutual co-operation and agreements, rather than threat of punishment
No-one trying to take advantage of another
All-in-all recognition that harming another in any way would harm themselves

etc etc hippy, happy, innocence and things. That's when it could work, yes.

[Iti oj]

Originally Posted by methylatedghosts

I don't honestly think there is a country on this planet that is currently socially advanced (enlightened?) enough where anarchy would work.

I can envision a model where it would work, but that would be quite some time in future. It would happen in a time and place where government was no longer needed, because we all did "the right thing" anyway.

And by "the right thing" I mean

no crime, through mutual co-operation and agreements, rather than threat of punishment
No-one trying to take advantage of another
All-in-all recognition that harming another in any way would harm themselves

etc etc hippy, happy, innocence and things. That's when it could work, yes.

?i heard you needed a hippy? how can i be service love peace and happiness

[The Sum of Awe]

Originally Posted by JacobEzra

Would "no accurate law" include laws against murder, rape and theft? Arson, molestation, kidnapping? Robbery?

Yep Why are there acceptions to when it is fine to kill another and when to not to? It doesn't make sense to try to reason something like that.

My friend, the point I was making is, if wwe can't be safe from violence with laws and police and prison, how much worse will it be when there are no consequences? Itl turn to old days when vendettas were taken and the cycle of violence will worsen because it'll be the only justice.

If you are afraid of upcoming violence, defend yourself against it, as many people will, including I, because you then have the right to serve your own morals. If you are against violence, save other people from it.

When people in my city are so apathetic that they will just walk or watch a man get beaten to death, without even calling the police, what does that say? Apathy is bad enough alone. Add anarchy, all civility will be lost.

If there is apathy about saving you, what makes you think there isn't apathy about harming you?

[The Sum of Awe]

Originally Posted by methylatedghosts

I don't honestly think there is a country on this planet that is currently socially advanced (enlightened?) enough where anarchy would work.

I can envision a model where it would work, but that would be quite some time in future. It would happen in a time and place where government was no longer needed, because we all did "the right thing" anyway.

And by "the right thing" I mean

no crime, through mutual co-operation and agreements, rather than threat of punishment
No-one trying to take advantage of another
All-in-all recognition that harming another in any way would harm themselves

etc etc hippy, happy, innocence and things. That's when it could work, yes.

And work according to whom? The Capitalist would disagree because they focus a lot on progression, not happy innocent things. They are just as right as you are.

You came up with the morals yourself, they are not nature's morals, and they are not the morals everyone agrees with.

[Wannabe Yogi]

Originally Posted by The Sum of Awe

So, does there have to be a candidate that will speak in terms for Anarchy, then will drop down as soon as elected, letting the country run freely? Or can you simply vote Anarchy now? I don't see why you can't vote Anarchy in any election because it shouldn't need a candidate, and it is always an option.

Anarchy happened in Somalia I can't see why it is impossable here in the US