Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a anarchist society everyday would be like the 1992 L.A riots because there would be no law and order. In a anarchist society there are no laws against rioting, looting, murder, rape, and invading people's private property.
So a polcie state is definitely the lesser of 2 evils.
Last edited by The Nostalgia Critic; 06-06-2011 at 01:17 AM..
If you had to choose the lesser of evils which would it be?
How is anarchy "evil?" Anarchy means absence of government, it doesn't mean there's chaos and violence. A police state is by definition a violation of my rights and inherently evil. Anarchy is evil only if you don't think people should be free. I'm not an anarchist, I'm more of a minarchist, but I seriously fail to see how anarchy is "evil." I'd rather have liberty in the extreme than authoritarianism in the extreme.
I used to be a longtime viewer of a YouTube channel of some guy from New Zealand. Most of his videos were about guns, and gun rights in NZ. My impression was that country is absolutely brutal when it comes to gun laws. Australia brutal? No. But "gun friendly" and "NZ" are two things that don't even belong anywhere near each other, at least from what I remember of this guys YouTube channel.
I've always had a fascination with New Zealand. I like the countries terrain and nature, being a hiking enthusiast... it almost seems like paradise. But their gun laws.... total ****. So much so that I've totally 'written off' the idea of ever visiting the country. I won't ever visit such a repressive country, no matter how enamored I may be with its landscape (and to some extent, its people seem nice, too).
Again, just my impression from watching the aforementioned guys videos for a long time. He seemed to know the gun laws fairly well... or well enough to give me a general sense of how hostile it is. The problem isn't so much that you can't have the guns..... it's just that they slap so many absurd restrictions on their use, and ownership itself (and the hoops you have to jump through) that it is what we in America would call in Constitutional law lingo, a "de facto ban." Meaning, they let you have them.... but using them is so heavily restricted, that its still a "ban" for all intents and purposes, because all of the guns that you can own end up being metal ornaments laying around your house. They reduce largely to "show" items.
That sounds like England, where most guns are reduced to ornaments.
A Brit came to play at the Lk George Tacticals for re-enactors only as the park part of the lake is closed in Octobers.
He was stunned to see we fire blanks..... He just happened to ask me if he could fire a blank from my cloned Brown Bess
I handed it over on the instant with a big grin. Handed him over 10 blanks, and he fired everyone with a bigger grin than I could do back! LOL
So then we took a hike away from camp(s) and I let him have 10 round ball. We are not supposed to have any round ball But Thar's no way this side of Hell I take a flintlock anywhere with out round ball.
We found trail side junk and he shot that all up, then I packed up the trash and packed it off the park lands once and for ever.
The reason we don't have rnd ball is we sort of shoot at other people who expect to get sort of shot at. At the time of year modern hunters could be around and would be shooting at deer, which has always been a smaller problem in all out heads. Since we look like deer. Not everyone does but many do.
The population density in an Anarchy seems to be way lower than in Police States. Countries entering anarchy tends to experience fast drops in populations as essential services of food, water, sewage and protection from violence breaks down. Whom hunger does not get, cholera often do.
Average lifespan in anarchies seem to be about 35.
Police states, on the other hand, seem able to keep most people alive and fed, unless you got a total nutter in charge, Like Pol Pot, or the Kims. You are normally able to enjoy most advantages of modern life in a Police State, except of course, freedom. You got health care, vacations, and violent crime is sometimes lower than in free countries.
Police States also seem to be the more predictable ones. You can shut up about stuff, and it'll vastly improve your chances of being left alone.
So in general, Anarchy is the worse one to experience. Whether than makes it more "evil" is a different matter.
Democracy beats both hands down anyway, being able to deliver a much better life than the police state, while maintaining some of the self-determination of Anarchy.
Good analysis. But I really wonder how many of us, used to saying whatever we feel like pretty much, would do in one. The tolerance level for "dissent" (which generally gets defined as 'not one of us') is pretty low. In Nazi Germany for a German to turn on the raido and listen to a foreign broadcast, secretly of course, and only loud enough to hear, was an act of rebellion. But they did. Getting caught could bring the Gestapo. But while they'd been conditioned to behave out of self preservation, they had not grown up in that kind of environment and noticed it. People who lived through Stalin learned as a matter of course how much was too much of a chance since he was arould for much longer.
The interesting thing is that the two do go together. When Rome broke down, when towns found themselves as the mercy of wandering bands and there was NO law, the law that grew was very authoritan. The tradeoff was between giving up your options in one sense for the protection afforded by the autocrat. That was the basis of the feudal system. Outside of where warlords controlled anarchy still ruled.
How is anarchy "evil?" Anarchy means absence of government, it doesn't mean there's chaos and violence. A police state is by definition a violation of my rights and inherently evil. Anarchy is evil only if you don't think people should be free. I'm not an anarchist, I'm more of a minarchist, but I seriously fail to see how anarchy is "evil." I'd rather have liberty in the extreme than authoritarianism in the extreme.
Than how do you explain the chaos and violence in New Orleans after Katrina where for a couple of days there was little to no law enforcement around. For a few days after Katrina, New Orleans was an anarchist society and was hell on earth.
The problem is you overestimate the goodness of Humanity. There are just way too many bad apples in the Human race for an anarchist society to work perfectly. If an anarchist society is so great, than Somalia for example would be the greatest counry in the world to live in.
Anarchy would surely result in divided power whereas a police state would result in concentrated power. I think that divided power would be far more desirable than consolidated power.
Whenever I see on the news, videos of someone getting jumped by a group of thugs and nobody steps in to help the person, instead witnesses just take out their camera phones and start filiming so that they can put it on youtube it makes me sick. The Human race sickens me, which is why I don't trust the Human race would do good things in an anarchist society.
Than how do you explain the chaos and violence in New Orleans after Katrina where for a couple of days there was little to no law enforcement around. For a few days after Katrina, New Orleans was an anarchist society and was hell on earth.
The problem is you overestimate the goodness of Humanity. There are just way too many bad apples in the Human race for an anarchist society to work perfectly. If an anarchist society is so great, than Somalia for example would be the greatest counry in the world to live in.
Interestingly, northern Somalia (Somaliland) is actually not too bad. The quality of life has improved tremendously since Mohamed Siad Barre was deposed. They actually have a budding tourism industry. Score one for free markets, eh?
Interestingly, northern Somalia (Somaliland) is actually not too bad. The quality of life has improved tremendously since Mohamed Siad Barre was deposed. They actually have a budding tourism industry. Score one for free markets, eh?
Somaliland still has one of the worst qualities of life in the world. It is not even close to being remotely developed to descent standards.
Neither are good. There does need to be certain checks and balances. However; the less government intrusion into the lives of individuals the better. The banning of certain things is absolute overkill, and I'm not in the business of telling a grown person what they can and cannot do, when they are harming nobody else. Now I suppose if anarchy meant that we all got along and there was no crazy s*** like with the clusterf*** in New Orleans after Katrina, or the LA riots then maybe it could work. Unfortunately there are those who have alterior motives and would use it as an excuse to create chaos. Still, government has gotten too big for its britches.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But Thar's no way this side of Hell I take a flintlock anywhere with out round ball.
