ClumsyMonkey.net

The difference is that you would have choice as to whether you wanted to be a part of the hierarchy. If people determine that the eldest in the family is the leader that's fine, but other people are not forced at gunpoint to stay within the structure.

It CANNOT work. It's a nice theory... but then again so was communism and we all know where that ended up. Inevitably some hierachy is going to decide that he wants more turf and conflict arises and the winner trumps up and becomes more powerful. And Otheres will see the threat of a bigger entity and swell in size or merge or what have you. In the end you will have wholesale conflict.

You could liken this to gang portection and shop keepers where some places shopkeepers pay gangs for protection (read: Leave them alone) They don't have a choice. If they refuse to pay their shop goes kaboom or something along similar lines. This is exactly what will happen with anarchy ( or your version of it anyways)

Communism isn't a very nice system either. I'm actually reading the manifesto right now and its rubbish.

I don't know how anarchy would work. You don't know how it would work either, as your suggestion is only theorized as well.

I'm not an anarchist, first of all. I'm just merely arguing that side. In fact this time last year I was probably one of the biggest lefties here. I'd say I'm right wing when it comes to economics but left wing when it comes to moral issues (like gay marriages, etc.) Some of my beliefs do correspond to anarchist beliefs, but I still believe that government can be morphed into something that can work for us instead of against us.

Korzic said exactly what i was trying to.

I'm no communist either, i believe in a lot of things, but realize that they won't happen in my life time. As it stands i'm for democratic socialism, much like the NDP.

Like Korzic said both Socialism and Anarchy can look great on paper but neither work in reality.

But i wa strying to say that Socialism matches our basic instincts better then anarchism.

J-Neli wrote:Got to disagree with you there Reno. There is no way the US would be able to make up the amount lost in taxes through bonds. That's trillions of dollars we're talking here, and the US would owe a large favour to every and any country who helped then out of this jam. The US would not want that just to be able to make a few bombs. At least any smart country wouldn't.

Protest doesn't work, but revolt does. Look at what is going on in the Ukraine right now. People are demonstrating and holding strikes. That is what any country needs to cause change. It's far more easier to accomplish as well than a political movement dependant on a democratic system.

that's where your wrong. US bonds are are good as gold. anyone would be willing to buy them especially if the interest promised is good. alot of the neo-cons would buy them, alot of corporations will buy them, making this democratic process worse off then it already is. other countries will take them up faster then anyone.

when the country is torn as even as the US is right now, a revolt similar to the one in the Ukraine would cause civil war, and in fact, give that some time and you will see blood shed in the Ukraine. Take power and spread. Raza Unidas did that, but they acted too fast. if you take it slowly and move from local elections into state elections to eventually national elections, it will be much more successful. (that and you need a cause that doesn't get accomplished to early)

J-Neli wrote:I don't know how anarchy would work. You don't know how it would work either, as your suggestion is only theorized as well.

You only have to go back in history to figure out how it worked. When we all started off as little tribes in the wilderness. And one tribe beat up another one and amalgamated it and so on and so forth till finally one group was powerful enough to rule all others. And hecne our current system today. Anarchy is still present today in a lot of African nations full of civil war.

I'm not an anarchist, first of all. I'm just merely arguing that side. In fact this time last year I was probably one of the biggest lefties here. I'd say I'm right wing when it comes to economics but left wing when it comes to moral issues (like gay marriages, etc.) Some of my beliefs do correspond to anarchist beliefs, but I still believe that government can be morphed into something that can work for us instead of against us.

The government is only working against you if you didn't vote for them. That is why you voted against them right?