(September 7, 2017 at 2:45 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: Government isn't actively trying to protect us. It only intervenes when a psychopath has already murdered someone.[...]

Lol... Here's someone, who learned all they know about the government and politics from comic books. Get some education, kid. Learn what governmental agencies actually do.

Sure - no form of government is "perfect", but complete lack of government would be a disaster, followed by establishment of rule of violence. In case of anarchy, organized crime syndicates would hold all the power and become de facto governments.

There's no going back to the caves, when there are billions of us.

No government means that me, and permanently disabled people like me, die. So, yeah, thanks for that.

So, for the record, the problems with government are that;

A: They don't pre-crime enough.
B: Prisons.
C: The Law.

Examples of corrupt abuse of power by government include (but are not limited to);

1: Paying farmers to produce food. because environment
2: Setting a minimum wage......because poors
2: Setting emissions standards.......because small business

In summary;

Fuck laws, whats the worst that could happen!

Most people here, including me, are from countries with stable governments and not so much to fear from the government.

People talk about Donald Trump and the police but I don't think anyone here has any practical fear of immediate direct violence from any government related organization on a day to day basis.

A change from a situation with government, to one without, for most of us here would require a revolution of some sort.

So for most if not everyone here it's like asking do you want stability, your life savings still in your bank account, your job, and maybe a walk in the park at the end of the week.  OR would you like to try to organize taking down an armed superpower.

In a situation where you could wave a magic wand and there would be no government that doesn't necessarily eliminate anything you mentioned from the situation.  A society could agree to uphold some sort of system of law that would be funded by consent to give their money to that cause rather than have it taxed.

I've heard some interesting arguments for anarchy and a lot against it, I don't consider myself to have a position on it myself.  But even the arguments I've heard for anarchy rely on a lot of conditions for it to work, and some sort of system of capitalism/voluntary exchanges of money with an an agreement against violent aggression.

Quote: Because I have taken a good long look at my fellow man and do not like what I see.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Quote: Such as democratic socialism, which blends socialism and capitalim into pretty much the best type going on today.

What do you mean by "democratic socialism"? As far as I know, that means "people now and then having to choose between two tyrants". You think that's a good thing? You think that Hitler was a good ruler just because many people thought he was less bad than other tyrants when they voted?

Quote: If it were my decision, I would give a whole continent to anarchists and fascists.

I'm not sure why exactly people put anarchism together with fascism. It's like exactly the opposite. Fascism wants government to control everything, including the racial content of a country, and anarchism doesn't want a government at all.

Quote: OP, how old are you? I don't think you've thought this thru to well.

I am 17. So what? Most of the people don't think about politics at all. They simply vote by tossing a coin, and send a message that they support the tyranny of the politicians.

Quote: Read Lucifer's Hammer.

I have read something about it on-line. What exactly does that have to do with anarchism? You think that, when there is no government, people would destroy all the infrastructure and leave us with some post-apocalyptic world? Why would anybody do that?

Quote: Ah yes, "capitalism."

What do you mean by "nasty"? If you mean "wanting the best for themselves, and not caring too much about others", then it works most of the time. We don't expect our meal because a baker is a good person who wants to give everyone bread, but because he makes money by making bread. But you know when it doesn't work? It's when government tells people what to do.

People already destroy the infrastructure.  They do so deliberately, and by negligence (of the official -and- reacreational varieties).  OFC, sometimes shit floods, too.  Bonus, sometimes flooded shit is also deliberate and negligent destruction of the infrastructure!

Anarchists will do this better?

(September 7, 2017 at 4:10 pm)paulpablo Wrote: People talk about Donald Trump and the police but I don't think anyone here has any practical fear of immediate direct violence from any government related organization on a day to day basis.

Really, some of them have cause to.

And the cause is not diminished by the venom directed black lives matter.

Hey, anarchism is just great until someone more willing to apply violence to you decides they want your stuff. Or your life.

Precisely where do you turn for justice? The mob? Vigilantism?

No thanks.

Oh, sorry, I haven't seen this other page.

Quote: In case of anarchy, organized crime syndicates would hold all the power and become de facto governments.

I have no idea why people say that government somehow prevents violence. Look at the human history. More power concentrated in fewer individuals always means more crime. There was so much crime during the communism and nazism. And in the Middle Ages, the knights were bossing everyone around, yet you couldn't safely walk the streets.

Quote: No government means that me, and permanently disabled people like me, die. So, yeah, thanks for that.

Why exactly? You think it's the politicians who have advanced the medical science? No, it's the scientists, and politicians just take credit for that.

When I look at the devastation Harvey left, I say to myself "You know what would make this situation better? Anarchy." Yup. Totally.

---

(September 7, 2017 at 4:37 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

Quote:No government means that me, and permanently disabled people like me, die. So, yeah, thanks for that.

Why exactly? You think it's the politicians who have advanced the medical science? No, it's the scientists, and politicians just take credit for that.

Because my medical needs are paid by Medicare and Medicaid?