Why are people so affraid of anarchy?

[FlatAssembler]

Because there would be no mechanism for redressing breach of contract except taking your business to another company which may well do the exact same thing. In the meantime, the patient's still dying.

An insurance company wants to kill its customers? What kind of twisted logic is that?

If you think that knights = police, and that their job was to 'stop people from being violent', I have to wonder about the quality of your education.

What's wrong there? When there was no war, the knights were supposed to bring peace and justice among ordinary citizens. That's pretty much what the police does nowadays.

This is one of the more nutty non-theism-related threads I've seen in a while on here.

And maybe it just appears crazy to you, because you've been indoctrinated to think that we need a government. To someone who has only listened to priests his entire life, atheism would sound crazy. You know what they say: "Stulti semper sic statuuntur, quod non intellegunt, aspernantur et abutuntur." That's so true.

Protip: assertions aren't arguments. Show your work.

These aren't blind assertions. More like inductive reasoning. I don't have enough power to do an experiment what will happen if murder is legalized.

What do you think will happen without one, that there will be no structure of power and everybody will be equal?

Why not? More economic freedom generally means more equality. Why would the inequality somehow skyrocket once you completely remove the government?

[Athene]

Alright, kid. You seem pretty committed to this anarchy thing. 
Fine. How about one night a year?

Time to get the that Purge on, baby....WOOOOHOOOO! Fuck yeah!
PURGE!!!! PURGE!!!! PURGE!!!! PURGE!!!

[Pat Mustard]

Government isn't actively trying to protect us. It only intervenes when a psychopath has already murdered someone. And then they put him not to a place where he will rehabilitate, but to a place from where he returns with even more psychological problems, which made him murder in the first place. For all we know, they could in fact be making things worse. Justice systems, judges and lawyers, have no interest in bringing peace and justice to the society, they make money by making other people argue with each other. Even if people are naturally violent, the last thing you need is a government. Government is made of people with power, and power corrupts, it doesn't make people better. If politicians really wanted to help the poor, they would give their undeserved money to charity, they certainly wouldn't pass a law that effectively makes it illegal for the poorest to have a job (called minimum wage law). If they really cared about the environment, they would stop subsidizing factory farming, that hurts the environment more than any other industry. They certainly wouldn't pass the emission standards laws that cause monopolies by hurting small corporations more than big ones. Politicians are good only at having long, boring and nonsense discussions. And laws are statements about how society should work made without evidence, and they should be dismissed without evidence. So, why are people so affraid of anarchy?

Because up to eight turns of no groeth, no production and no commerce is a bitch.

---

Ah yes, "capitalism."

From a guy who is constantly and consistently negative, I'd expect as much.

To quote Churchill "Capitalism is the best economic system, apart from all the others. But it keeps me rich, waa-hey!"

---

No, not really.  Capitalism describes a system where industry and trade are run solely by private entities for profit.  Great system if you happen to have money, pretty shitty if you don't.  Or you have extravagant needs, like healthcare (which IMO, should not be a for-profit enterprise).

bold mine

In a perfect world that would be great. But in our society I don't see much medical advancement based on altruism alone.

Most of it pretty much is. Nealy all advancements over the last 100 years were directly from government or through wholly government funded academic institutions, made by people who were doing it for the jouy of discovery. The remainder was by researchers who had the means to carry it out on their own.

Most of what a company considers R&D is a tax dodge, the rest is buying out other peoples' discoveries.

---

Your thought process is "if a government has ever done a bad thing, all governments and forms of government are bad."  That is so sophomoric I don't even want to get into a conversation with you to explain why.

When has a government ever done a good thing? I mean, sure, politicians usually have good intentions, but when have their policies ever achieved what they were intended to?

Ah, television. Quite a lot of modern medicine. Public transport. Health and safety regulation. Mass education (which obviously hasn't taken in your case).

[paulpablo]

Because some of us have a fucking ounce of compassion for our fellow human beings, and aren't worthless pieces of shit who think it should be the hunger games out there.

The hunger games seems to be about government control rather than anarchy.  I haven't read or seen the Hunger games, but there seems to be similar themes to 1984.  An overzealous police force, strict surveillance and an unequal society.

Collins also cites as a classical inspiration the Roman  games. She feels three key elements create a good game: an all powerful and ruthless government, people forced to fight to the death, and the game's role as a source of popular entertainment.

[Pat Mustard]

Ok, well then I'm still totally confused lol. Chuck said "it isn't owning a business that's the problem, it's the buying and selling of it". What exactly is the problem with capitalism then if it isn't that?

Well, numerous examples have been given in this thread, IIRC, but my #1 gripe would be the ever-widening income gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Furthermore, I don't have a problem with capitalism per se, I have a problem with insufficiently regulated capitalism.

Insufficiently regulated is the only type of capitalism. Once you start telling the owners of capital what they can and can't do it ceases being capitalism and starts resembling classical mercantilism.

Oh, and I'll also note that it was when capital was both heavily regulated and taxed that saw the greatest period of sustained growth and mass prosperity. Surely it's time to retry the social democrat experiment.

---

The fact that he uses medieval knights bossing everyone around as an example is priceless as well.

Why is that example wrong, exactly? They were trying to stop people from being violent by having knights (=police) go everywhere and by having insane torture methods. Yet, the violence was very high. Today, police intervenes much less often and is much less cruel. But, the violence is much lower than it was in the Middle Ages. By that logic, there would be the least crime if there was no government trying to stop crime at all.

You're wrong on this. Knights are the sine qua non of crminal gangs taking over in an anarchistic situation. After the fall of western Rome and its successor states, around the 8-9th centuries CE local strongpoints were taken over by robber gangs (the leaders appointing themselves barons and their followers knights), and sacking everything of value in their areas. It was only two to three centuries later through a combination of agglomeration (think Fulk Nerra) and royal centralisation (think what William the Bastard did after the Norfolk rebellion) that the chivalric code was imposed on the thugs from above and what we now think of as knights were invented.

[OYSTERPRICK]

Government isn't actively trying to protect us. It only intervenes when a psychopath has already murdered someone. And then they put him not to a place where he will rehabilitate, but to a place from where he returns with even more psychological problems, which made him murder in the first place. For all we know, they could in fact be making things worse. Justice systems, judges and lawyers, have no interest in bringing peace and justice to the society, they make money by making other people argue with each other. Even if people are naturally violent, the last thing you need is a government. Government is made of people with power, and power corrupts, it doesn't make people better. If politicians really wanted to help the poor, they would give their undeserved money to charity, they certainly wouldn't pass a law that effectively makes it illegal for the poorest to have a job (called minimum wage law). If they really cared about the environment, they would stop subsidizing factory farming, that hurts the environment more than any other industry. They certainly wouldn't pass the emission standards laws that cause monopolies by hurting small corporations more than big ones. Politicians are good only at having long, boring and nonsense discussions. And laws are statements about how society should work made without evidence, and they should be dismissed without evidence. So, why are people so affraid of anarchy?

Because too many cooks spoil the broth

[Joods]

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.

Scientists aren't going to hand over their own money to continue supporting the numerous government programs already in existence for disabled people. That isn't how it works. Just because advancements in the medical community grow, doesn't mean fuck all if there isn't a government around to make sure that the disabled living in this country have a means of getting some kind of much needed monetary support. 

Stay in school young one. You still have a LOT of learning to do.

[Whateverist]

No one is afraid of anarchy, especially not so long as you all agree to do things my way.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm not afraid of anarchy, but its sons cause me some concern.

[OYSTERPRICK]

Government isn't actively trying to protect us. It only intervenes when a psychopath has already murdered someone. And then they put him not to a place where he will rehabilitate, but to a place from where he returns with even more psychological problems, which made him murder in the first place. For all we know, they could in fact be making things worse. Justice systems, judges and lawyers, have no interest in bringing peace and justice to the society, they make money by making other people argue with each other. Even if people are naturally violent, the last thing you need is a government. Government is made of people with power, and power corrupts, it doesn't make people better. If politicians really wanted to help the poor, they would give their undeserved money to charity, they certainly wouldn't pass a law that effectively makes it illegal for the poorest to have a job (called minimum wage law). If they really cared about the environment, they would stop subsidizing factory farming, that hurts the environment more than any other industry. They certainly wouldn't pass the emission standards laws that cause monopolies by hurting small corporations more than big ones. Politicians are good only at having long, boring and nonsense discussions. And laws are statements about how society should work made without evidence, and they should be dismissed without evidence. So, why are people so affraid of anarchy?

Because too many cooks spoil the broth