Anarchy

[Kyuuketsuki]

The point is that if you dont like the laws where you are, you can go somewhere else, or start your own community. Sure the laws will be kind of crappy in some communities by our definition, but "people get the government they deserve." If they want to be idiots, that's their right.

Well, quite apart from you being wrong for reasons already given (you didn't actually deal with my point about teaching creationism), I think the proponents of so-called anarchy don't actually want true anarchy, they just want the laws and government constructs they find oppressive (impinge upon THEIR freedoms) to f*** right off.

Personally I am reasonably happy with the democratic system we (in the UK) have ... yes certain administrations go too far but every 4 to 5 years we have elections and that's when I get my chance to say what I think by putting a tick in the box of the party I would prefer to be in.

IMO centralised government is a necessary evil and, if run according to a society's morality (and in democratic systems laws do tend to reflect a given society's moral stance) tend to be rights based and that's a reasonably good thing I suppose (though I don't tend to believe in rights per se).

Kyu

[Giff]

If you have no goverment then what will then happen to economy, healthcare, education and other importent issues? A goverment is needed to oragnize a community.

I don't think anarchy is any good ideology.

[Tiberius]

If you have no goverment then what will then happen to economy, healthcare, education and other importent issues? A goverment is needed to oragnize a community.

I don't think anarchy is any good ideology.

Hence why I like Libertarianism. Minimize the government as much as possible as long as it still works. Restore civil liberties and economic liberties, make the markets free, and don't allow corporate welfare.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Hence why I like Libertarianism. Minimize the government as much as possible as long as it still works. Restore civil liberties and economic liberties, make the markets free, and don't allow corporate welfare.

What is libertarianism? Is that the same as liberal?

Kyu

[bozo]

The point is that if you dont like the laws where you are, you can go somewhere else, or start your own community. Sure the laws will be kind of crappy in some communities by our definition, but "people get the government they deserve." If they want to be idiots, that's their right.

Well, quite apart from you being wrong for reasons already given (you didn't actually deal with my point about teaching creationism), I think the proponents of so-called anarchy don't actually want true anarchy, they just want the laws and government constructs they find oppressive (impinge upon THEIR freedoms) to f*** right off.

Personally I am reasonably happy with the democratic system we (in the UK) have ... yes certain administrations go too far but every 4 to 5 years we have elections and that's when I get my chance to say what I think by putting a tick in the box of the party I would prefer to be in.

IMO centralised government is a necessary evil and, if run according to a society's morality (and in democratic systems laws do tend to reflect a given society's moral stance) tend to be rights based and that's a reasonably good thing I suppose (though I don't tend to believe in rights per se).

Kyu

The democratic system we had in the UK offered some hope up until 1985 when Kinnock, erstwhile firebrand of the left, delivered his famous conference speech on the subject of the Militant Council in Liverpool, which was actually fighting Thatcherism rather than giving in, just like the miners who were left to fight alone by the " new realists " at the TUC who should have called a General Strike at the outset of the strike in 84. Thatcher should have been taken on and defeated! Instead, the working class was beaten and we are still suffering the consequences today.
The point is, that from then on, the Labour Party gave up on offering a socialist alternative and eventually became " new Labour " which was more accurately " new Conservative ".
The tactic worked in terms of forming a government and winning elections, but what for? Not for what the Labour Party was formed for.
Even worse, the conservatives too are rebranding themselves in much the same way so as to appeal to the midle class types who voted new Labour in!
Thus, today the uk voter does not have the choice between a capitalist ( Tory ) party and a socialist ( Labour ) party..and the Liberals ( or whatever they call themselves ), who are plain confused.
The choice is simply which coloured rosette you favour in the knowledge that it will be a capitalist rosette.
So, if we could have our old right/left parties back again, I'd be as content as you Kyu.

[Tiberius]

Hence why I like Libertarianism. Minimize the government as much as possible as long as it still works. Restore civil liberties and economic liberties, make the markets free, and don't allow corporate welfare.

What is libertarianism? Is that the same as liberal?

Kyu

No. It involves reducing the government to the minimum size possible, freeing up civil and economic liberties. We stand for the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. We don't really fit on the traditional "left - right" scale, but this scale shows you where we are:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

We answer "agree" to all those 10 propositions.

This has some pretty good definitions: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/lib-whatlib.html

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Adrian

I don't understand how you conflate 'anarchy' and 'libertarian' in principle.

A popular meaning of anarchy is "chaos".This is fair enough when applied to large complex societies where government has broken down. A vivid example is China at the end of the 19th and early C20th.

However,the word means lack of govern-ment,not lack of govern-ance. It seems anarchy may have been the first form of social organisation.It works very well in societies arranged in small groups,without a complex system of the specialisation of labour. The oldest extant culture on earth,that of the Australian aborigine is anarchic.


The purpose anarchy is survival of and maximum benefit to the group as a whole,not the individual. In such societies ,any individual who threatens the group is expelled. This can take the form of infanticide, abandonment of the elderly and witch hunts.

Do we perhaps have different understandings of the terms 'anarchy' and 'Libertarian' ?

[Tiberius]

I think the word "anarchy" is too close to a complete abolition of the government, which yes would invariably lead to chaos. What I like about Libertarianism is it seeks to create a small form of government that increases civil and economic liberties whilst eradicating the parts of government that simply should not play a role. So whilst in an anarchic system you wouldn't have a "government" to speak of, in a Libertarian system you would. They would be elected to their positions just as we elect people today.

[Edwardo Piet]

And would it, I think I read, be mostly about protecting the people from harm (e.g, police), and helping them if they were hurt (e.g hospitals)? Only what is really necessary? Most of the rest is totally open and free or something like that?

If I understand correctly?

[Tiberius]

Precisely, police force, army, hospitals, etc. There would be no laws on what people could do to their own bodies, so all drugs would be legal, as well as euthanasia, gay marriage, etc. The legalisation of drugs would cause a reduction in the amount of crime (especially gang and gun related), and all drugs would be taxed in the way cigarettes are. Increased levels of drug awareness campaigns would make people more aware of the dangers, and let people get off them safely. Freedom of speech would be held as an inalienable right, except when that freedom of speech is slanderous towards a specific individual.