The Biggest Problems of this World

[drewtheyellow]

But are we talking about success of the collective or of the individual?

Well, collective, the summation of the individuals. I would not argue just from freedom's value but rather the ends that freedom attains.

Of course, as you previously mentioned, we would require a Utopian society for anarchy to function. It is purely a hypothetical, "in the perfect world" theory. All people are skeptical of radical change, so even if we were on the right course, in the right mindset, it would take generations to implement.

Right, not only that but we would have to be on track to the same anarchy to some extent, at least each group would. The type of society for the individuals to live in would have to be the same for all bound within that anarchic group and thus we have issues with some of the more conflicting anarchist beliefs.

[Markie]

Anarchy:

O.K., I'm no expert on "anarchy" so go ahead and toast me, but I don't think
anarchy would work or would even exist for very long.
Anytime a government system totally fails, such as in riots and revolutions,
you have an anarchy. And it lasts a very short time because without rules,
the rule is: The strong take what they want from the weak.
Any strength comes in numbers, so very soon you have bands,
and clans like in some countries such as Afghanistan.
And they will be making the rules. Bye-bye anarchy.

I think we really need a very sophisticated government system that
was set up and thought out by the best heads / scientists and
developed with one priority: Justice and Equality.

[Leto729]

Anarchy:

O.K., I'm no expert on "anarchy" so go ahead and toast me, but I don't think
anarchy would work or would even exist for very long.
Anytime a government system totally fails, such as in riots and revolutions,
you have an anarchy. And it lasts a very short time because without rules,
the rule is: The strong take what they want from the weak.
Any strength comes in numbers, so very soon you have bands,
and clans like in some countries such as Afghanistan.
And they will be making the rules. Bye-bye anarchy.

I think we really need a very sophisticated government system that
was set up and thought out by the best heads / scientists and
developed with one priority: Justice and Equality.

How are scientists going to do that?

[Calandale]

Well, everyone knows that
scientists seem to understand
political and philosophical issues
better than everyone else.

[drewtheyellow]

Well, everyone knows that
scientists seem to understand
political and philosophical issues
better than everyone else.

QFT

Anarchy:

O.K., I'm no expert on "anarchy" so go ahead and toast me, but I don't think
anarchy would work or would even exist for very long.
Anytime a government system totally fails, such as in riots and revolutions,
you have an anarchy. And it lasts a very short time because without rules,
the rule is: The strong take what they want from the weak.
Any strength comes in numbers, so very soon you have bands,
and clans like in some countries such as Afghanistan.
And they will be making the rules. Bye-bye anarchy.

Well, most anarchies are built upon some rules but without a central government to enforce them instead relying on the comunity. Usually the rules are relatively basic.

I think we really need a very sophisticated government system that
was set up and thought out by the best heads / scientists and
developed with one priority: Justice and Equality.

Sophistication leaves more and more room for corruption. Just as a sophisticated machine is harder to clean, a sophisticated government is as well, and we cannot claim that we will have a government without corruption either as we will have a government of human beings. Scientists are not the ones to create such a system, we would have political theorists, economists and other groups and the disagreements between them are so great and the terms of best so subjective that we cannot argue that we would have perfection in that so much as strife. Heck, some of the greatest minds in these subjects would argue against your very aims as being foolish. Finally, justice is a rather empty term. Humans have no way of determining justice, our various conflicting moral suppositions do not allow for a single code of justice to capture it all. In fact, in my worse moods I think that human beings should all die for being so freakin' stupid. As well, is equality really one of the highest of our goals anyway? If we had robots that automatically killed all human beings then we would have equality and according to some senses we would have justice but the system is not desirable to most. Not only that but what limits are put on equality? Not all people can be geniuses, in fact some are mentally retarded and physically handicapped, do we equalize those as well to create a society of retarded cripples?

[Calandale]

Well, everyone knows that
scientists seem to understand
political and philosophical issues
better than everyone else.

QFT

Figures you would quote my sarcasm. 

[drewtheyellow]

Figures you would quote my sarcasm. 

That was just dripping with sarcasm, I mean, being more sarcastic than that is almost a human impossibility. Of course I would love it!

[vodz]

Figures you would quote my sarcasm. 

That was just dripping with sarcasm, I mean, being more sarcastic than that is almost a human impossibility. Of course I would love it!

TBH, I thought he was being serious.

Markie, what you conclude was the point we were getting to, that for anarchy to work everyone needs to govern themselves, which seems impossible.

[McGiver]

Figures you would quote my sarcasm. 

That was just dripping with sarcasm, I mean, being more sarcastic than that is almost a human impossibility. Of course I would love it!

TBH, I thought he was being serious.

Markie, what you conclude was the point we were getting to, that for anarchy to work everyone needs to govern themselves, which seems impossible.

yes, especially today.  at a time when government does most of peoples thinking for them, through legislation.

[Calandale]

Figures you would quote my sarcasm. 

That was just dripping with sarcasm, I mean, being more sarcastic than that is almost a human impossibility. Of course I would love it!

TBH, I thought he was being serious.

And I thought "A Modest Proposal" was serious too.