Do you like order or anarchy more?

What do you like more?

Order or anarchy?

I like anarchy more.

What do you like more?

Anarchy, of course.

Well, Mad Max was pretty cool, so I'm going with Anarchy.

Too much rigidity gets annoying

Order. Anarchists are foolish.

bangell99

Somewhere in between, but more leaning towards order.

Anarchy, although you wrote is as if order and anarchy are two completely different things. Anarchy is not about disorder.

Order. Anarchists are foolish.

[QUOTE="Commander-Gree"][QUOTE="bangell99"]

Order. Anarchists are foolish.

CRS98

Why do you think so?

[QUOTE="CRS98"][QUOTE="Commander-Gree"] This. Martzel94

Why do you think so?

[QUOTE="Martzel94"]

[QUOTE="CRS98"] Thrice.bangell99

Why do you think so?

Because people think it would be cool to have no government and no rules, but it wouldn't. They don't consider the negative consequences. Society would degenerate into a brutal, mindless state of "survival of the fittest". And people would form small groups, like tribal societies, and they would have their own codes and moralities on how to run things, and hierarchies would form. There will always be governing bodies, anarchists don't realise that they'd still exist, on a much smaller scale, formed of survivors from the brutal battle to stay alive in a world without restraint.

You associate anarchism with disorder and that's not what it's about. Anarchism is about personal freedom, which includes a lack of government. In a place where there is no greed, anarchism would work. In many countries you have to obey certain rules and agree with actions of a group of people even if you do not agree with them. In an anarchist community everyone would decide what is right or wrong themselves and would have to be responsible, but again it would require intelligence which in many cases the mindless masses lack.

Order.

I'm just a quiet guy, so I like it the way I have it already.

The funny thing is anarchy can actually stem from order.

A lot of the laws we have in place make it easy for criminals to commit crimes more easily.

[QUOTE="Martzel94"]

[QUOTE="CRS98"] Thrice.bangell99

Why do you think so?

Because people think it would be cool to have no government and no rules, but it wouldn't. They don't consider the negative consequences. Society would degenerate into a brutal, mindless state of "survival of the fittest". And people would form small groups, like tribal societies, and they would have their own codes and moralities on how to run things, and hierarchies would form. There will always be governing bodies, anarchists don't realise that they'd still exist, on a much smaller scale, formed of survivors from the brutal battle to stay alive in a world without restraint.

Order. I really don't like people who prefer Anarchy.. I think they're silly and easily defeated in any form of logic or competitive battle. There is strength in numbers.. where as there is very little strength in one individual doing whatever he feels like doing.

Order anarchists don't know what they are talking about

I say somewhere in between, leaning more towards order though.

Too much rigidity gets annoying

avatar_genius

no rigidity gets annoying too

like messy roommates.

I like being in between but i'd rather have an anarchy. Life would be like it was in the cavemen times. Survival of the fittest a time when man was on instinct. Sure with an anarchy this world will be a warzone. But with order...sure it is more safer but you don't have no control. Rules run you. A person is basically a slave whether he/she believes or not. That is not something I would enjoy. I like to free where I can start my own rule without nothing or no one holding me back.MgamerBD

idunno, order is pretty nice.

Order is what we have now, and I am free to do just about anything I like.

Order. Anarchists are deluding themselves.chessmaster1989

Can things evolve if no one takes a chance to step out of the norm and try something "new" and "different" instead of just following the steps in line like they usually do?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Order. Anarchists are deluding themselves.avatar_genius

Can things evolve if no one takes a chance to step out of the norm and try something "new" and "different" instead of just following the steps in line like they usually do?

I'm not saying order cannot be questioned. I'm merely saying pure anarchy is damn stupid.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Order. Anarchists are deluding themselves.avatar_genius

Can things evolve if no one takes a chance to step out of the norm and try something "new" and "different" instead of just following the steps in line like they usually do?

if we go by the strict definition of anarchism, no...we gain nothing, and lose evrything. Not to mention change, in order to be safe and effective, needs to occur over time. We just elected a black president...we will likely have universal healthcare soon...change over time.

However, if you want to come up with some new form of anarchism (semianarchism, demiarchism, whatever...) then lets talk.

[QUOTE="MgamerBD"]I like being in between but i'd rather have an anarchy. Life would be like it was in the cavemen times. Survival of the fittest a time when man was on instinct. Sure with an anarchy this world will be a warzone. But with order...sure it is more safer but you don't have no control. Rules run you. A person is basically a slave whether he/she believes or not. That is not something I would enjoy. I like to free where I can start my own rule without nothing or no one holding me back.mrbojangles25

idunno, order is pretty nice.

Order is what we have now, and I am free to do just about anything I like.

I've never lived with Anarchy so I wouldn't know

Although I imagine it would be pretty awful.

[QUOTE="Martzel94"]

[QUOTE="bangell99"]

Because people think it would be cool to have no government and no rules, but it wouldn't. They don't consider the negative consequences. Society would degenerate into a brutal, mindless state of "survival of the fittest". And people would form small groups, like tribal societies, and they would have their own codes and moralities on how to run things, and hierarchies would form. There will always be governing bodies, anarchists don't realise that they'd still exist, on a much smaller scale, formed of survivors from the brutal battle to stay alive in a world without restraint.

bangell99

You associate anarchism with disorder and that's not what it's about. Anarchism is about personal freedom, which includes a lack of government. In a place where there is no greed, anarchism would work. In many countries you have to obey certain rules and agree with actions of a group of people even if you do not agree with them. In an anarchist community everyone would decide what is right or wrong themselves and would have to be responsible, but again it would require intelligence which in many cases the mindless masses lack.

Sadly, it's usually mindless people who support anarchism anyway.

[QUOTE="bangell99"]

[QUOTE="Martzel94"]

You associate anarchism with disorder and that's not what it's about. Anarchism is about personal freedom, which includes a lack of government. In a place where there is no greed, anarchism would work. In many countries you have to obey certain rules and agree with actions of a group of people even if you do not agree with them. In an anarchist community everyone would decide what is right or wrong themselves and would have to be responsible, but again it would require intelligence which in many cases the mindless masses lack.

hamstergeddon

Sadly, it's usually mindless people who support anarchism anyway.

Well, Locke believed people had the responsibility to govern themselves without strict rule and control, because people were by nature "responsible."

Hobbes, however, believed that people acted on their evil nature and needed rules and control to keep them in line, because people were by nature "irresponsible."

So, the fathers of the Constituion most likely believed in Locke.

All forms of order, no matter how extreme, are preferable to all forms of anarchy.

All forms of order, no matter how extreme, are preferable to all forms of anarchy.

Theokhoth

So, you would rather live in a world where you have no right to voice your opinion and you have to follow strict government rules than live in a world where there is no government and you have liberty? I guess some people do not value the ability to speak and think for themselves.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

All forms of order, no matter how extreme, are preferable to all forms of anarchy.

Martzel94

So, you would rather live in a world where you have no right to voice your opinion and you have to follow strict government rules than live in a world where there is no government and you have liberty? I guess some people do not value the ability to speak and think for themselves.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

All forms of order, no matter how extreme, are preferable to all forms of anarchy.

Martzel94

So, you would rather live in a world where you have no right to voice your opinion and you have to follow strict government rules than live in a world where there is no government and you have liberty?

Yes. Because there is no liberty in anarchy. A world without laws would be disaster. Read the Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. Which is preferable: eliminating the speed limit, or setting it to 30 mph no matter where we go? Can you imagine what would happen if the former, and people went as fast as they want?

The only time liberties matter is in a system of order; in anarchy, they neither matter nor exist.

[QUOTE="Martzel94"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

All forms of order, no matter how extreme, are preferable to all forms of anarchy.

Theokhoth

So, you would rather live in a world where you have no right to voice your opinion and you have to follow strict government rules than live in a world where there is no government and you have liberty?

Yes. Because there is no liberty in anarchy. A world without laws would be disaster. Read the Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. Which is preferable: eliminating the speed limit, or setting it to 30 mph no matter where we go? Can you imagine what would happen if the former, and people went as fast as they want?

The only time liberties matter is in a system of order; in anarchy, they neither matter nor exist.

I already explained that a few times, anarchism requires intelligence. Intelligent beings have sense, unfortunately many people do not. We live in "order" yet there are still people who drive as fast as they want and cause accidents.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Martzel94"]

So, you would rather live in a world where you have no right to voice your opinion and you have to follow strict government rules than live in a world where there is no government and you have liberty?

Martzel94

Yes. Because there is no liberty in anarchy. A world without laws would be disaster. Read the Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. Which is preferable: eliminating the speed limit, or setting it to 30 mph no matter where we go? Can you imagine what would happen if the former, and people went as fast as they want?

The only time liberties matter is in a system of order; in anarchy, they neither matter nor exist.

I already explained that a few times, anarchism requires intelligence. Intelligent beings have sense, unfortunately many people do not. We live in "order" yet there are still people who drive as fast as they want and cause accidents.

And yet, if anyone could drive as fast as they want, the rate of accidents would be so high that we wouldn't get anywhere at all. ;)

Anarchism is the most unintelligent political idea (It's too naive to be a philosophy) ever conceived. Anarchy would not and could not be some paradise with no rules, where everybody just gets along as long as they're smart. It's not even possible; anarachy would inevitably lead to some type of order because order is absolutely necessary.