Sibirsky wrote:The Cobalt Sky wrote:Wouldn't those be laws then?
Also, this topic may cover this discussion:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p22694403
Anarchy = no rulers.
Wouldn't that include capitalists, then?
Advertisement
by Servica » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:31 am
Sibirsky wrote:The Cobalt Sky wrote:Wouldn't those be laws then?
Also, this topic may cover this discussion:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p22694403
Anarchy = no rulers.
by The GAmeTopians » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:31 am
Saviola wrote:Anarchism is perhaps the worst idea ever devised! Without a government there would be chaos, instability, and lawlessness. Governments may make bad policies sometimes, but without them to make laws and policies, all the sickos out there (and we all know there are) will be able to commit crimes without any hindrance whatsoever. Also, if anarchism worked, nations could not exist.
Empire of Donner land wrote:EHEG don't stop for no one.
It's like your a prostitute and the RP is a truck. The truck don't stop.
by Skinia » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:32 am
by Sibirsky » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:35 am
They just don't believe in mass-production of things they can make themselves.
The fuck does that have to do with anarchism?
by MERIZoC » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:36 am
Nuwe Suid Afrika wrote:ChildrenConfused TeensPeople who have most commonly dropped out of high-school and would rather live in a completely free society with no laws and no economy than get a minimum wage job and listen to higher-ups.
by Sibirsky » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:40 am
Saviola wrote:Anarchism is perhaps the worst idea ever devised! Without a government there would be chaos, instability, and lawlessness. Governments may make bad policies sometimes, but without them to make laws and policies, all the sickos out there (and we all know there are) will be able to commit crimes without any hindrance whatsoever.
Also, if anarchism worked, nations could not exist.
by Socialist Czechia » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:41 am
"Those who reached my boundary, their seed is not; their hearts and their souls are finished forever and ever. As for those who had assembled before them on the sea, the full flame was their front before the harbour mouths, and a wall of metal upon the shore surrounded them. They were dragged, overturned, and laid low upon the beach; slain and made heaps from stern to bow of their galleys, while all their things were cast upon the water." - Ramesses III., Battle of the Delta
by Sibirsky » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:41 am
by Skinia » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:45 am
by Settrah » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:45 am
Sibirsky wrote:What? That's like saying if socialism worked, capitalism could not exist. Yet clearly we see both. Anarchism and statism are not mutually exclusive on a global scale. Only territories.
by Sibirsky » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:47 am
by Skinia » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:47 am
Settrah wrote:Sibirsky wrote:What? That's like saying if socialism worked, capitalism could not exist. Yet clearly we see both. Anarchism and statism are not mutually exclusive on a global scale. Only territories.
Are you sure about that? Because Socialism and Capitalism refer to the ownership of the means of production. If the means of production are privately owned, that's Capitalist. Because it's privately owned, it can never be Socialist under that routine, because Socialism is fundamentally against private ownership. If it's a mixed economy, it would still be Capitalist. If it's a Market Socialist economy, it's publicly owned so it's Socialist, but that doesn't mean it's Capitalist.
Also, how in any pragmatic sense could Anarchism and Statism co-exist?
by Vazdaria » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:49 am
Anarchy Federation wrote:Do you think they are lazy, spoiled, or idealists? Pick what you want!
by Settrah » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:49 am
Skinia wrote:Settrah wrote:
Are you sure about that? Because Socialism and Capitalism refer to the ownership of the means of production. If the means of production are privately owned, that's Capitalist. Because it's privately owned, it can never be Socialist under that routine, because Socialism is fundamentally against private ownership. If it's a mixed economy, it would still be Capitalist. If it's a Market Socialist economy, it's publicly owned so it's Socialist, but that doesn't mean it's Capitalist.
Also, how in any pragmatic sense could Anarchism and Statism co-exist?
Yet again another stupid "socialism is state ownership"-argument.
by Saviola » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:50 am
by Skinia » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:50 am
by Sibirsky » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:51 am
Settrah wrote:Sibirsky wrote:What? That's like saying if socialism worked, capitalism could not exist. Yet clearly we see both. Anarchism and statism are not mutually exclusive on a global scale. Only territories.
Are you sure about that? Because socialism and capitalism refer to the ownership of the means of production. If the means of production are privately owned, that's capitalist. Because it's privately owned, it can never be socialist under that routine, because socialism is fundamentally against private ownership. If it's a mixed economy, it would still be capitalist. If it's a market socialist economy, it's publicly owned so it's socialist, but that doesn't mean it's capitalist.
Also, how in any pragmatic sense could anarchism and statism co-exist?
by Servica » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:51 am
by Ifreann » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:52 am
by Skinia » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:52 am
Settrah wrote:
Are you sure about that? Because Socialism and Capitalism refer to the ownership of the means of production. If the means of production are privately owned, that's Capitalist. Because it's privately owned, it can never be Socialist under that routine, because Socialism is fundamentally against private ownership. If it's a mixed economy, it would still be Capitalist. If it's a Market Socialist economy, it's publicly owned so it's Socialist, but that doesn't mean it's Capitalist.
by Settrah » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:53 am
Sibirsky wrote:Settrah wrote:
Are you sure about that? Because socialism and capitalism refer to the ownership of the means of production. If the means of production are privately owned, that's capitalist. Because it's privately owned, it can never be socialist under that routine, because socialism is fundamentally against private ownership. If it's a mixed economy, it would still be capitalist. If it's a market socialist economy, it's publicly owned so it's socialist, but that doesn't mean it's capitalist.
Also, how in any pragmatic sense could anarchism and statism co-exist?
Cuba is socialist. Canada is capitalist. They coexist. Get it? Very basic.
So, country A gets rid of their government and becomes anarchist. Country B retains their government and stays statist.
Still confused?
by Skinia » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:54 am
Ifreann wrote:Skinia wrote:How so? By advocating the overthrow of the current system with a revolution anarchists can stir up quite a hate and make quite a few enemies.
Not really. Plenty of people would disagree, but that isn't hatred. Anarchists don't really do anything to provoke hatred. Whereas fascists started a rather large war and killed quite a few people, as you may be aware. And moreover, fascists have some political viability in some parts of the world, which threatens the rights and safety of many people. Not so much with anarchists.
Sibirsky wrote:Settrah wrote:
Are you sure about that? Because socialism and capitalism refer to the ownership of the means of production. If the means of production are privately owned, that's capitalist. Because it's privately owned, it can never be socialist under that routine, because socialism is fundamentally against private ownership. If it's a mixed economy, it would still be capitalist. If it's a market socialist economy, it's publicly owned so it's socialist, but that doesn't mean it's capitalist.
Also, how in any pragmatic sense could anarchism and statism co-exist?
Cuba is socialist. Canada is capitalist. They coexist. Get it? Very basic.
So, country A gets rid of their government and becomes anarchist. Country B retains their government and stays statist.
Still confused?
by Settrah » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:55 am
Skinia wrote:Settrah wrote:
Except I never made that argument.Settrah wrote:
Are you sure about that? Because Socialism and Capitalism refer to the ownership of the means of production. If the means of production are privately owned, that's Capitalist. Because it's privately owned, it can never be Socialist under that routine, because Socialism is fundamentally against private ownership. If it's a mixed economy, it would still be Capitalist. If it's a Market Socialist economy, it's publicly owned so it's Socialist, but that doesn't mean it's Capitalist.
Public ownership = state ownership.
by Sibirsky » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:56 am
Saviola wrote:What I meant by "If Anarchism worked nations would not exist" is that if anarchism truly worked and was better than all other systems, than everyone would adopt it and dissolve their respective nations for anarchism=anti-state. Also, without a government who would pass and enforce these laws you are saying are integral to anarchism. I did not say that anarchism was synonymous with crime, only that those willing to commit crime would be able to take advantage of the fact that there is no government or police to enforce the law.
by Fortschritte » Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:56 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Likhinia, Neu California, New haven america
Advertisement