As I said, this is the place for debate and not the General Discussion threads.

I for one support Anarchy. Isard, react.

What sort of anarchy?

Simply no leaders, nobody telling anyone what to do.

For the rest, it could be anything: from industrial communes with laws to tribes living simply.

Anarchy is fundamentally flawed. It depends on all its constituents agreeing and finding 100% common ground. Criminals, greedy individuals, and anyone else who doesn't meet your standard would either become misfits, or actively abuse the lack of authority.


Anarchy has never existed successfully for more than a few short years, because we are social creatures that need hierarchies, we need leaders. Why do we need leaders?

Leadership is a rare quality in people. They're charismatic, dedicated, and intelligent people. Able to look at issues from multiple angles and come to a rational decision. The best leaders don't simply take action thought, they also query those they are leading to assemble an arsenal of opinions that they must take into consideration. Their job then is to come to a fair decision, then convince those it goes against that it is in their best interests.

They're also a reassurance to people in hard times. FDR and Hitler during their countries depressions, Winston Churchill and Charles De'Gualle during WWII. An autonomous collective has no leader that people can beleive in for hope.

Anarchy is nothing better than mob rule. Harsh and unforgiving.

Isn't the "good leader" a myth, just like the perfect anarchy where nobody harms anyone?

FDR begs to disagree.

FDR is dead.

I look solutions for the world of 2010, not the States of the early 20th century.

Ah, but you were saying that good leaders were a myth. FDR is proof they do exist, they simply are rare.

The last two people who had his job are tearing apart everything he worked for.

I like what France has. It's a democratic system, but it's also a democratic system where the masses have a revolutionary mindset. French people protest everything, they are truly a people who have the government in fear. They are a people that aren't afraid to go hand-to-hand with riot police. I would argue that France has quasi-anarchy, simply because of how much control the people have over their government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz1Bgo-U-fM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH9kTNTuBkE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vT3xuYzlDM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGHIfeVmASY

And this is what their actions get them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhU6-tKi2Ec

That is the system the world should strive for. Maybe we can't have anarchy, but we can have a world where people aren't afraid to overthrow their government whenever necessary.

Because violence solves everything.

Works for the French.

Wow, so you support violence as a means to an end now. I never would have thought it.

I though that was why you had right to bear arms in the States, right?

65 million French people + 1 I guess...

One of them. And there are groups that maintain readiness to rise up if the government turns "evil".







Riots? We're more civilized in our protesting. Revolution? We have armies living at home.

I think Switzerland's the only country with more military grade arms per person than the US.