starvingeyes wrote:i oppose force, or rather, the iniation of the use of it.
i also reject the notion that some men are fit to rule over others.
so yes, i am an anarchist. i believe it the total dissolution of the state. think of it as 100% deregulation of everything.
starvingeyes wrote:yes. i exist harmonisously amongst other people today, don't i?
J-Neli wrote:I think there is room for such a society, but not in the context that Chris would like. I think it would be much more realistic if political parties had members who they supported, rather than a government that provides the support. That way people have choice as to which party they want to be a part of (if any) and there is a power structure created that allows for a safe society.. Yes, it is very well possible that rogue parties could exist, but their ability to exist is no different from today.
There are already examples of parties offering help to citizens in the form of education and health care - Hamas. Part of the reason Hamas was elected into power was because of their role in the community. They provided free health care and education and people wanted that and put them in power. Eliminate the elections and Hamas would still offer services to citizens.
In a society that I envision, parties could collect taxes from members (in the form of membership fees) or develop partnerships with private enterprise through sponsorships and this would provide assistance to the public. An individual would have a choice between a number of parties to belong to, or they they could decide not to belong to any and simply find their own private method of existance. Such a society would eliminate force, include the role of private enterprises, and keep a structure within society that would ensure people were as safe as they are today.
Korzic wrote:J-Neli wrote:I think there is room for such a society, but not in the context that Chris would like. I think it would be much more realistic if political parties had members who they supported, rather than a government that provides the support. That way people have choice as to which party they want to be a part of (if any) and there is a power structure created that allows for a safe society.. Yes, it is very well possible that rogue parties could exist, but their ability to exist is no different from today.
There are already examples of parties offering help to citizens in the form of education and health care - Hamas. Part of the reason Hamas was elected into power was because of their role in the community. They provided free health care and education and people wanted that and put them in power. Eliminate the elections and Hamas would still offer services to citizens.
In a society that I envision, parties could collect taxes from members (in the form of membership fees) or develop partnerships with private enterprise through sponsorships and this would provide assistance to the public. An individual would have a choice between a number of parties to belong to, or they they could decide not to belong to any and simply find their own private method of existance. Such a society would eliminate force, include the role of private enterprises, and keep a structure within society that would ensure people were as safe as they are today.
*boggle* This is no different than what we have today? I pay premiums to have private health insurance, I pay premiums to have car insurance, I pay fees for gym membership and I don't have to pay to belong to any political party, I just vote for whom I best feel represents my views.
J-Neli wrote:Korzic wrote:J-Neli wrote:I think there is room for such a society, but not in the context that Chris would like. I think it would be much more realistic if political parties had members who they supported, rather than a government that provides the support. That way people have choice as to which party they want to be a part of (if any) and there is a power structure created that allows for a safe society.. Yes, it is very well possible that rogue parties could exist, but their ability to exist is no different from today.
There are already examples of parties offering help to citizens in the form of education and health care - Hamas. Part of the reason Hamas was elected into power was because of their role in the community. They provided free health care and education and people wanted that and put them in power. Eliminate the elections and Hamas would still offer services to citizens.
In a society that I envision, parties could collect taxes from members (in the form of membership fees) or develop partnerships with private enterprise through sponsorships and this would provide assistance to the public. An individual would have a choice between a number of parties to belong to, or they they could decide not to belong to any and simply find their own private method of existance. Such a society would eliminate force, include the role of private enterprises, and keep a structure within society that would ensure people were as safe as they are today.
*boggle* This is no different than what we have today? I pay premiums to have private health insurance, I pay premiums to have car insurance, I pay fees for gym membership and I don't have to pay to belong to any political party, I just vote for whom I best feel represents my views.
But it isn't what we have today. People are still forced to live under the beliefs of others. In Canada people aren't allowed to pay for health care if they so desire. It means that people have to pay taxes and then go to hospitals that lack nurses, doctors, etc. It also means that in cities of 50,000 people there is only one family doctor, because the government has put a cap on how much a doctor can earn. People wait on waiting lists for months and sometimes years to get operations they require, yet they aren't allowed to go to a private facility.
Under the system I described above, some parties would offer universal health care to its members, while a right wing party might say that they won't collect taxes and you can go find whatever health care you want, whenever you want. This would provide for more competition, better service, and people would at least have a choice.
Maybe Canada is a unique case because it is a highly developed nation that has a comparatively large amount of public services and taxes and laws that restrict individuals from existing outside of the public realm.
I just think it isn't fair that someone could live their whole life under a system that they don't want to live under. A socialist can't live the life they want in the United States, same as a Right Wing conservative can't live the life they want in Canada and that's where democracy fails. It's a one size fits all solution to a problem where people aren't generic.
cannibalism, crime and bullying all are dependant on the iniatiation of the use of force. as i stated earlier, i am opposed to this and would be prepared to defend myself.No, I disagree. There are plenty of people out there who would not live harmoniously with you. From hardened criminals to the hard headed. From the rabid of each side of the political spectrum. From those who bullied you at school to those who bully you now (in what ever form). It is impossible, because for each idea that you maintain there is someone who will rail against it. To take an extreme example. There are still certain people who practice cannibalism. Would you live harmoniously amongst them if you were to be their next dinner? Or if not you, what about a family member?
i think you have overlooked my first post. i never said i was searching for some non-violent utopia. i am more realistic than that.I think all of you have overlooked what I stated in the very beginning. Anarchy is a paradox. Anarchism is all about the individual. But individuality is what prevents anarchism from ever working.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests
Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC - 6 hours • PHPBB Powered
Serving Our Lady Peace fans since 2002. Oskar Twitch thanks you for tasting the monkey brains.