Total Posts:101|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anarchism: Dumb or not?

Yarely
Posts: 329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 9:10:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I want to know the whole philosophy and idea of an anarchist society. Because from what I've heard it sounds really stupid. But I could be wrong. Do we need government? Or is government completely vital to a healthy civilized society?
"Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion and liberation of the human body from the coercion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals""
-Emma Goldman
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 10:00:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 9:10:46 PM, Yarely wrote:
I want to know the whole philosophy and idea of an anarchist society.

Anarchy is one of those words that is almost too dynamic to define. Some people consider themselves anarchist capitalists, which just want the free market to run everything, while others like myself would prefer more of a communist spin on it (I personally believe capitalism requires a public sector to step in and make businesses play fair). There are other versions of it well, like syndacalism, which I don't personally understand.

I've heard of anarchy used in looser ways as well, without necessarily meaning "state-less society." It can be used to mean bedlam, or it can be used as simply an anti-establishment personality (winks at Cosmic).

Because from what I've heard it sounds really stupid. But I could be wrong.

Most economic systems are stupid in some respect. But it's even stupider to not have anything to support at all, since something has to be in place.

Do we need government? Or is government completely vital to a healthy civilized society?

Perhaps, perhaps not. I can give some good reasons why we ought to at least try, though.
Rob
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 12:41:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 9:10:46 PM, Yarely wrote:
I want to know the whole philosophy and idea of an anarchist society. Because from what I've heard it sounds really stupid. But I could be wrong. Do we need government? Or is government completely vital to a healthy civilized society?

No, those statements pretty much summarize it up.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ryan_thomas
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:22:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 9:10:46 PM, Yarely wrote:
I want to know the whole philosophy and idea of an anarchist society. Because from what I've heard it sounds really stupid. But I could be wrong. Do we need government? Or is government completely vital to a healthy civilized society?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
All Hail Lord Ryan!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 2:19:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
No matter how you look at it, the interpretations of anarchy are either impossible, run the risk of doing a 180 into totalitarianism, or are just plain nonsensical.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ryan_thomas
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 2:30:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 2:19:00 AM, 000ike wrote:
No matter how you look at it, the interpretations of anarchy are either impossible, run the risk of doing a 180 into totalitarianism, or are just plain nonsensical.

agreed
All Hail Lord Ryan!
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 2:37:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anarchy is chaos in action. Anarchy is the way things are.

The only power is chaos magic, and chaos magic gains its power through belief. Government has power because people give it that power through belief. Money is worth something because people believe it is worth something.

To have an anarchistic mindset is to be aware of these phantoms, and understand that the principalities and authorities that govern our lives do not have nearly as much power as we believe. After understanding this, and then accepting the fact that you are caught in the middle of a large scale game of make believe, the rest is the practical execution of game theory.

Most anarchists are idealists. I consider myself an anarcho-realist. An anarcho-idealist believes that anarchy is something to strive for. An anarcho-realist believes that anarchy is already here.

anarcho-realists are naive, misinformed, and have not thought their ideologies to their logical conclusion. An anarcho-realist has, and having accepted reality for what it is, is able to practice navigating the anarchistic society in a manner that is conducive to their goals.

They are very different things, but I would argue to what I would imagine to be a unanimous disagreement that anarcho-idealists are not true anarchists at all. This includes anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-communists, guys who paint anarchy symbols on their stuff and have a face that is 80% metal, etc.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 2:38:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 2:37:03 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anarchy is chaos in action. Anarchy is the way things are.

The only power is chaos magic, and chaos magic gains its power through belief. Government has power because people give it that power through belief. Money is worth something because people believe it is worth something.

To have an anarchistic mindset is to be aware of these phantoms, and understand that the principalities and authorities that govern our lives do not have nearly as much power as we believe. After understanding this, and then accepting the fact that you are caught in the middle of a large scale game of make believe, the rest is the practical execution of game theory.

Most anarchists are idealists. I consider myself an anarcho-realist. An anarcho-idealist believes that anarchy is something to strive for. An anarcho-realist believes that anarchy is already here.

anarcho-idealists are naive, misinformed, and have not thought their ideologies to their logical conclusion. An anarcho-realist has, and having accepted reality for what it is, is able to practice navigating the anarchistic society in a manner that is conducive to their goals.

They are very different things, but I would argue to what I would imagine to be a unanimous disagreement that anarcho-idealists are not true anarchists at all. This includes anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-communists, guys who paint anarchy symbols on their stuff and have a face that is 80% metal, etc.

oop
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 2:48:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 2:37:03 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anarchy is chaos in action. Anarchy is the way things are.

The only power is chaos magic, and chaos magic gains its power through belief. Government has power because people give it that power through belief.

Wrong. Government has power through military. Military gives government power and government gives military power.

Money is worth something because people believe it is worth something.

The concept of money is the bartering system refined. We do not believe money is worth something, it is worth something because it can do something and we have established it to do something. It is not a mere belief.


To have an anarchistic mindset is to be aware of these phantoms, and understand that the principalities and authorities that govern our lives do not have nearly as much power as we believe.

Actually, the anarchistic mindset you just described was full of logical holes, misconception and ignorance.

After understanding this, and then accepting the fact that you are caught in the :middle of a large scale game of make believe, the rest is the practical execution of :game theory.

Most anarchists are idealists. I consider myself an anarcho-realist. An anarcho-idealist believes that anarchy is something to strive for. An anarcho-realist believes that anarchy is already here.

That belief stems from a misinterpretation and sheer misunderstanding of the existing institution of government and law.

anarcho-realists are naive, misinformed, and have not thought their ideologies to their logical conclusion. An anarcho-realist has, and having accepted reality for what it is, is able to practice navigating the anarchistic society in a manner that is conducive to their goals.

They are very different things, but I would argue to what I would imagine to be a unanimous disagreement that anarcho-idealists are not true anarchists at all. This includes anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-communists, guys who paint anarchy symbols on their stuff and have a face that is 80% metal, etc.

Those are confused individuals and people who are fed up with government and have constructed a logically incoherent bridge of thought to rationalize a new alternative.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 4:32:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 2:48:53 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/2/2011 2:37:03 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anarchy is chaos in action. Anarchy is the way things are.

The only power is chaos magic, and chaos magic gains its power through belief. Government has power because people give it that power through belief.

Wrong. Government has power through military. Military gives government power and government gives military power.


Who uses the weapons?

Money is worth something because people believe it is worth something.

The concept of money is the bartering system refined. We do not believe money is worth something, it is worth something because it can do something and we have established it to do something. It is not a mere belief.


Money has been established to do something, and has gained it's worth through belief.


To have an anarchistic mindset is to be aware of these phantoms, and understand that the principalities and authorities that govern our lives do not have nearly as much power as we believe.

Actually, the anarchistic mindset you just described was full of logical holes, misconception and ignorance.

By all means, show me where I am in err.


After understanding this, and then accepting the fact that you are caught in the :middle of a large scale game of make believe, the rest is the practical execution of :game theory.

Most anarchists are idealists. I consider myself an anarcho-realist. An anarcho-idealist believes that anarchy is something to strive for. An anarcho-realist believes that anarchy is already here.

That belief stems from a misinterpretation and sheer misunderstanding of the existing institution of government and law.

On the contrary. There is but one government and law, and that is physics. Chaos is the result of physics. The government you believe is a phantom. It is subservient to the true authority, of which I speak of. You are speaking of the liver as if it is the entire body.


anarcho-realists are naive, misinformed, and have not thought their ideologies to their logical conclusion. An anarcho-realist has, and having accepted reality for what it is, is able to practice navigating the anarchistic society in a manner that is conducive to their goals.

They are very different things, but I would argue to what I would imagine to be a unanimous disagreement that anarcho-idealists are not true anarchists at all. This includes anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-communists, guys who paint anarchy symbols on their stuff and have a face that is 80% metal, etc.

Those are confused individuals and people who are fed up with government and have constructed a logically incoherent bridge of thought to rationalize a new alternative.

Their alternatives will lead them back to what they were rebelling against.

Don't get me wrong, talking sh!t about the current institutions is grand and all, trying to inflict order onto chaos is only going to make more chaos. Government in its current form is incapable of being competent... but what they speak of isn't anarchy. History goes through cycles, and we tend to swallow the same exact things that we already figured out didn't work simply because the name is different.

The problem with anarchists is that they tend to treat the state different than any other institution. The only thing that sets McDonalds, Walmart, and the state apart is influence. They are all businesses.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 4:40:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 9:10:46 PM, Yarely wrote:
I want to know the whole philosophy and idea of an anarchist society. Because from what I've heard it sounds really stupid. But I could be wrong. Do we need government? Or is government completely vital to a healthy civilized society?

Ooops... Anarchy is sort of a sacred cow here. We have a number of anarchists who don't any sort of critical analysis or attack... but at the same time are unable to defend it.

It short anarchy is retarded, not even anarchists actually support it they are generally fooling themselves.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 7:36:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 9:10:46 PM, Yarely wrote:
I want to know the whole philosophy and idea of an anarchist society. Because from what I've heard it sounds really stupid. But I could be wrong. Do we need government? Or is government completely vital to a healthy civilized society?:

Anarchism takes a very reasonable argument against the monopoly of power, and then ruins it by taking it to an illogical extreme of absolutes.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:21:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Any system that works against human nature either fails, or becomes a horrific disaster. - This would be true at both individual and social construct levels.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:26:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
A fine idea in itself - live accordingly to the ideology you subscribe to, don't let a few people decide what amount of money you earn goes to you, and what goes to taxes, etc.

But I don't buy it. There can be good governments. Anarchists argue that humankind has moved on from old ages where people wanted dominance by leaders - but if that's the case, why not just make a good case for minarchism?

Anarchists say that minarchism seems to result in large government all the time. Well, in the past it happened yes. But not everywhere - some countries are more liberal than ever before. Moreover, anarchism always resulted something like a government - in the past. So, how can they argue against minarchism resulting in large government while saying anarchism will not? Both share similar histories.

Moreover, if people have grown from old days and the need of a single government, meaning that if there were anarchy then people wouldn't support a government, then we can simply say that if there is a minor government, then people wouldn't support a larger one at any cost. Same thing. But anarchists seem to be too biased in admitting that there's no difference.

Also, monopoly of power is in no way a necessity for the government. There can different parts of a hierarchy, where the government is merely a result of many high-status organizations leading the society accordingly to how people want. In this case, there's no monopoly in the hands of the government.

Have a nice day.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:32:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This thread is much less controversial after the great AnCap exodus. Which anarchists are still here? I'm aware we have a lot libertarians but Cody_Franklin and J. Kenyon are both gone, and were both cogent defenders of the ideology.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:37:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 2:19:00 AM, 000ike wrote:
No matter how you look at it, the interpretations of anarchy are either impossible, run the risk of doing a 180 into totalitarianism, or are just plain nonsensical.

Debate me on it... haven't I asked this before?
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:37:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 2:30:14 AM, ryan_thomas wrote:
At 9/2/2011 2:19:00 AM, 000ike wrote:
No matter how you look at it, the interpretations of anarchy are either impossible, run the risk of doing a 180 into totalitarianism, or are just plain nonsensical.

agreed

You can also feel free to debate me on it if you really feel that way. Shall I send you a challenge?
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:39:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 11:26:14 AM, Mirza wrote:
Also, monopoly of power is in no way a necessity for the government.

LOL - that's the definition of government.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:39:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Or rather it's inherent to government (since copying and pasting government from the dictionary will not explicitly say "monopoly of power" even though that's exactly what it is).
President of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:41:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 11:39:10 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:26:14 AM, Mirza wrote:
Also, monopoly of power is in no way a necessity for the government.

LOL - that's the definition of government.
No. The government legislates power. That can be done in various ways without the government having a monopoly. And I can give many examples.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:43:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
To "legislate power" seems nonsensical, but it simply means that the government is the generator of the society. It alone can't run it, but does it in a cycle, but ultimately it provides basic needs for the society to function.

Like a computer, it is mainly generated by a battery, but the battery needs to be charged. So there are many things that run the computer, not either just the battery or just the charger.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:46:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 11:32:26 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
This thread is much less controversial after the great AnCap exodus. Which anarchists are still here? I'm aware we have a lot libertarians but Cody_Franklin and J. Kenyon are both gone, and were both cogent defenders of the ideology.

Not really, just a lot less whiney.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:47:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 11:41:00 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:39:10 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:26:14 AM, Mirza wrote:
Also, monopoly of power is in no way a necessity for the government.

LOL - that's the definition of government.
No. The government legislates power. That can be done in various ways without the government having a monopoly. And I can give many examples.

"A government requires a monopoly on power." That's the resolution to a debate I can challenge you to. Accept the challenge or don't expect me to perpetuate a futile argument with you in the forums.
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:51:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 11:47:44 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:41:00 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:39:10 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:26:14 AM, Mirza wrote:
Also, monopoly of power is in no way a necessity for the government.

LOL - that's the definition of government.
No. The government legislates power. That can be done in various ways without the government having a monopoly. And I can give many examples.

"A government requires a monopoly on power." That's the resolution to a debate I can challenge you to. Accept the challenge or don't expect me to perpetuate a futile argument with you in the forums.

Isn't that a strawman definition? Don't mind me I am just going to go check on the neighbours fences.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:52:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 11:47:44 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:41:00 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:39:10 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:26:14 AM, Mirza wrote:
Also, monopoly of power is in no way a necessity for the government.

LOL - that's the definition of government.
No. The government legislates power. That can be done in various ways without the government having a monopoly. And I can give many examples.

"A government requires a monopoly on power." That's the resolution to a debate I can challenge you to. Accept the challenge or don't expect me to perpetuate a futile argument with you in the forums.
Sure - but you need to post the challenge and argument within one hour (3 days argue time is fine) because I want to start quick. Busy these days.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:54:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 11:51:47 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:47:44 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:41:00 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:39:10 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:26:14 AM, Mirza wrote:
Also, monopoly of power is in no way a necessity for the government.

LOL - that's the definition of government.
No. The government legislates power. That can be done in various ways without the government having a monopoly. And I can give many examples.

"A government requires a monopoly on power." That's the resolution to a debate I can challenge you to. Accept the challenge or don't expect me to perpetuate a futile argument with you in the forums.

Isn't that a strawman definition? Don't mind me I am just going to go check on the neighbours fences.
What's a strawman definition? Government = monopoly of power in a society?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:55:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 11:47:44 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:41:00 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:39:10 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:26:14 AM, Mirza wrote:
Also, monopoly of power is in no way a necessity for the government.

LOL - that's the definition of government.
No. The government legislates power. That can be done in various ways without the government having a monopoly. And I can give many examples.

"A government requires a monopoly on power." That's the resolution to a debate I can challenge you to. Accept the challenge or don't expect me to perpetuate a futile argument with you in the forums.

I'd recommend smoothing that out a bit first.

Monopoly - "The exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something"
Exclusive - "Excluding all but what is specified"

There are other things with power in all governments. We have private security forces, we have private arbitration and private mediators, private a lot of stuff.

I think a better would be "Government requires ultimate power" with "ultimate" being defined as "1.Being or happening at the end of a process; final."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:58:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 11:55:42 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:47:44 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:41:00 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:39:10 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:26:14 AM, Mirza wrote:
Also, monopoly of power is in no way a necessity for the government.

LOL - that's the definition of government.
No. The government legislates power. That can be done in various ways without the government having a monopoly. And I can give many examples.

"A government requires a monopoly on power." That's the resolution to a debate I can challenge you to. Accept the challenge or don't expect me to perpetuate a futile argument with you in the forums.

I'd recommend smoothing that out a bit first.

Monopoly - "The exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something"
Exclusive - "Excluding all but what is specified"

There are other things with power in all governments. We have private security forces, we have private arbitration and private mediators, private a lot of stuff.

I think a better would be "Government requires ultimate power" with "ultimate" being defined as "1.Being or happening at the end of a process; final."
That's what we debate. We don't debate that government has no exclusive power (such as the power to send spies to another country) - but that it has no general monopoly as a whole. I will give a good example of a debate where a government existed but had no monopoly whatsoever.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 11:58:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 11:54:48 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:51:47 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:47:44 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:41:00 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:39:10 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/2/2011 11:26:14 AM, Mirza wrote:
Also, monopoly of power is in no way a necessity for the government.

LOL - that's the definition of government.
No. The government legislates power. That can be done in various ways without the government having a monopoly. And I can give many examples.

"A government requires a monopoly on power." That's the resolution to a debate I can challenge you to. Accept the challenge or don't expect me to perpetuate a futile argument with you in the forums.

Isn't that a strawman definition? Don't mind me I am just going to go check on the neighbours fences.
What's a strawman definition? Government = monopoly of power in a society?

Yes.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.