Why are people so affraid of anarchy?

[Jello]

Why have Anarchism when you can have Communism instead?

Because you die a quick exciting death rather than a lingering miserable one?

I'd rather die with my free housing and free food than be a starving homeless person...

[Thumpalumpacus]

You think that Hitler was a good ruler just because many people thought he was less bad than other tyrants when they voted?

Hitler never won a single government election. Look it up.

[Anomalocaris]

You think that Hitler was a good ruler just because many people thought he was less bad than other tyrants when they voted?

Hitler never won a single government election. Look it up.

Well, he still came to power through a mechanism within the nominally democratic system, just like trump.

---

Because you die a quick exciting death rather than a lingering miserable one?

I'd rather die with my free housing and free food than be a starving homeless person...

You wouldn't starve as a homeless person in an anarchy.  You'd be killed as the mob take the food and shelter away from you.

[Jello]

---

I'd rather die with my free housing and free food than be a starving homeless person...

You wouldn't starve as a homeless person in an anarchy.  You'd be killed as the mob take the food and shelter away from you.

Exactly, so communsim is the better choice

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hitler never won a single government election. Look it up.

Well, he still came to power through a mechanism within the nominally democratic system, just like trump.

No, not "just like Trump". He was appointed in a state where Hindenburg appointed Chancellors using the so-called "emergency powers".

Rather than recapitulate an argument I've had in another thread, I'll simply link you to that thread; you can read up on it here.

Hitler was not placed in office by any democratic means. "Nominally democratic" is rather like "kind of pregnant."

[CapnAwesome]

Because someone always fills the power vacuum. Normally not someone good.

[bennyboy]

Step 1: Achieve anarchy
Step 2: Try to establish a makeshift local government as fast as possible so you don't get your wife raped and your stuff taken by bigger, stronger neighbors
Step 3: Realize that you were dumb to think anarchy was ever going to be a thing.

/thread

[Jackalope]

There's nothing wrong with those things.  The issues occur in part many people have no money, and little opportunity.  In addition, capitalism tends to concentrate the wealth in the hands of very few people.

It's a great system for the haves, not so great for the have-nots.

I just don't understand how allowing someone to sell or to buy their own business is unfair to people with less money.

It's a good thing that no one was making that claim then.

[Anomalocaris]

Well, he still came to power through a mechanism within the nominally democratic system, just like trump.

No, not "just like Trump". He was appointed in a state where Hindenburg appointed Chancellors using the so-called "emergency powers".

Rather than recapitulate an argument I've had in another thread, I'll simply link you to that thread; you can read up on it here.

Hitler was not placed in office by any democratic means. "Nominally democratic" is rather like "kind of pregnant."

Uh, no.  "Emergency powers" were enacted after Hitler had been appointed chancellor by Hindenburg.  It had nothing to do with Hitler being appointed in the first place.

Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor using article 48 of the Weimar constitution.   Article 48 was part of the original constitutional framework that gave Weimar Republic its appearance of democracy.  While it gave the president the right to issue emergency decrees, these decrees are part of the constitution's system of Checks and balances.  It's own check and balance is the fact that emergency decrees issued under article 48 can be cancelled or voided by a simple majority vote in the Reichstag.  Furthermore, the use of article 48 is far from Un usual.  It was invoked at least 140 times during Weimar republic's 14 year existence, many during the period the period between hyperinflation of the early 20s and the depression at the end of the 1920s, when Weimar democracy is considered to have functioned most smoothly.

So Hitler certainly gained power through a basic and commonly used mechanism of the Weimar democratic framework.  The democracy also had a constitutional check against this mechanism, a simple majority reichstag vote to void Hitler's appointment.  It did not so act.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, not "just like Trump". He was appointed in a state where Hindenburg appointed Chancellors using the so-called "emergency powers".

Rather than recapitulate an argument I've had in another thread, I'll simply link you to that thread; you can read up on it here.

Hitler was not placed in office by any democratic means. "Nominally democratic" is rather like "kind of pregnant."

Uh, no.  "Emergency powers" were enacted after Hitler had been appointed chancellor by Hindenburg.  It had nothing to do with Hitler being appointed in the first place.

Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor using article 48 of the Weimar constitution.   Article 48 was part of the original constitutional framework that gave Weimar Republic its appearance of democracy.  While it gave the president the right to issue emergency decrees, these decrees are part of the constitution's system of Checks and balances.  It's own check and balance is the fact that emergency decrees issued under article 48 can be cancelled or voided by a simple majority vote in the Reichstag.  Furthermore, the use of article 48 is far from Un usual.  It was invoked at least 140 times during Weimar republic's 14 year existence, many during the period the period between hyperinflation of the early 20s and the depression at the end of the 1920s, when Weimar democracy is considered to have functioned most smoothly.

So Hitler certainly gained power through a basic and commonly used mechanism of the Weimar democratic framework.  The democracy also had a constitutional check against this mechanism, a simple majority reichstag vote to void Hitler's appointment.  It did not so act.

This doesn't void my objection, firstly, because Hindenburg had been operating under emergency powers since 1930 without Reichstag reproval, and secondly, because there's a big difference between appointment and election, your protests notwithstanding.

Your comparison is stilted at best. Hitler was appointed. Trump wasn't. Sorry. It was no democratic process that placed Hitler in power. It was the exercise of decree.

The fact that the Reichstag didn't vote "no confidence" prior to the Enabling Act which mooted even the appearance of democracy in Germany does not obviate the fact that Hitler was not emplaced by any vote. There was only six weeks between his appointment and that act, six weeks occasioned by the Reichstag being fired up and scapegoats being hunted.

Let us know when this has happened here. Until then, your comparison is overdrawn.