erm... Oddworld

V...

Rorschach has 6 bullets in his gun. V gets shot 20+ times and then kills 10 armored soldiers, gets shot some more, and then strangles a man to death with his bare hands. He than manages to walk several probably a mile or 2 through the subway back to his bomb.

I don't care how BA Rorschach is, but he doesn't stand a chance.

I play video games in my free time, other things (work, friends) take precedence over gameing... unless I'm gaming online with friends, then I may play several hours at a time.

[QUOTE="gamer_10001"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

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.

Theokhoth

Actually... no. Ever here of the Autoban. The Interstate is one of the safest roads in America yet it has the highest speed limit. In residential areas where there are no stop lights/signs then it is understandable to have a speed limit. But get rid of speed limits in other places and the accident rate won't go up.

High speed limit =/= no speed limit. If you think accidents wouldn't go up if every driver could go any speed they wanted without consequence. . .you think that.:|

Autoban has no speed limit and has lower accident rates than the US. I'd find the studies, but I really don't care about arguing this point any further anyway.

[QUOTE="Martzel94"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

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.

Theokhoth

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.

Actually... no. Ever here of the Autoban. The Interstate is one of the safest roads in America yet it has the highest speed limit. In residential areas where there are no stop lights/signs then it is understandable to have a speed limit. But get rid of speed limits in other places and the accident rate won't go up.

[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.

No, I'm perfectly aware that they'd still exist, but there would be nothing forcing me to stay or to conform. If you don't like society now and do not wish to conform to it, then where do you go? The desert, one of the Poles, deserted island. In a more chaotic state you have that choice. If people don't like society they should have the right to leave it so their beleifs do not infringe on those who wish to conform to it.

Unfortuantely my own want for technological and intellectual progression directly conflict with that belief. For technology to progress there must be incentive to progress it. That means an economy, and that means government. Since the former won't happen might as well stick the option of "order."

*votes "order" in pol.... oh wait*

That depends, are we talking like an exter cent or 2 or are we talking an increase of a few percentage points.

Bill Gates

I'd have a hard time describing the universe as "having order and balance."