Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If there ever is anarchy in the UK - i don't mind you blaming me. I'm a revolutionary at heart
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly i aint a leftie i can be as extream as any one else mabye even more so as i am willing to endure anything and do anything to achive this goal. secondly you all say "ohhh human society is built on heirachy ect ect." well it isnt if a perfect state of anarchy is achived (AND THIS AINT CHAOS FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SAID IT IS) if people live in anarchy and they are happy with it then new forms of government would not be allowed to arise because as a community of people all making the same decision against the new goverment they would abolish it and then go back to the state which they came from there is nothing wrong with rules as long as they are not enforced upon people who do not want to follow them look at the uk we are supposed to follow the human rights convention but still everyday we are forced in to corners by the goverment for example the new laws comening out on smoking and relationships between under 16's.
    i mean what i dont even have the right to smoke down the street any more or in a pub and club just because some people dont like smoke. If this is the case i can understand smoking being banned in indoor shopping centers and certain clubs and pubs but people should not be forced to just smoke on their property.
    the same with the new law about relationships under 16 realistically speaking it will be illegal for anyone under 16 to even hold hands in public!!! this is ridiclous as it then forces couple to be even more secrative. i am not really interested in these points at all but i feel that if the goverment is already making laws like this then how far will they go and how long will it be before we are compleatly under their thumb ready to walk to our deaths just because they say so.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    so you want freedom to do what you want... what about a persons freedom not to be subjected to your behaviour eg. passively breathing in your smoke for example. if there were no rules, we would end up having to put up with the most disruptive of those in our society.. as Aristotle said - "rules are for the guidance of wise-men and the governance of fools"

    now im sure a lot of people are "wise-men" and now where to draw the line, but there are many other "fools" out there who do not. it is these fools that rules control because a lot of people dont know where the boundaries are..

    and finally.. it is rules and a system of heirarchy which allow us to live in the comfortable was that we do.. not having to worry that someone free to do as they please will come and steal our belongings.. rules allow us the time to be creative so that we dont waste our time concentrating on protecting our fundamental needs (water, food, shelter) and protecting our family, possessions from harm. you think anarchy would give you more freedom but it would restrict you. It would become lord of the flies, survival of the fittest.. you complain about someone making decisions for you, complaining about tax money is fine but think about it, what does the tax money pay for? it pays for the services that we expect.. if your house is burning down you expect the fire brigade to turn up in 2 secs flat, and if someone stole your mobile youd be more than happy to see some policeman take it off themand return it to you. someone has to organise this, and you cant expect everyone to have the same values as you have..

    read about the disaster of the commons..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Look I ain’t rich but hey if I was ever in a car accident or something I would not want to go to a godamn NHS hospital and you know what I wont ever have to because I pay health insurance and I am covered by BUPA this means if worst comes to worst I can actual tell the Paramedics they HAVE to take me to a BUPA hospital by having a little card in my wallet IM still at school and studying so you tell me why I am still paying emergency tax to the government and then having to slog my arse off to pay private health care bill for some other person to use.
    Survival of the fittest so what its not a bad thing look at every thing around you how did they get here by being the best I mean if we weren’t the fittest then why is there nothing above us on the food chain. And if it means that the world is rid of the weaker people be they any nationality race religion what ever I dot care then it doesn’t matter because at the end of the day it will only make the human race stronger some people might think it is wrong to say this but I am impaling no predjucies if people want to pay tax them let them if they don’t they shouldn’t have to complete anarchy is not impossible but it not achievable over the period of a few years either it would take centuries maybe even longer and as for you passive smoking point the government ********s yes passive smoking can be harmful if you are exposed to it over a very long period of time under extreme circumstances smokers are not killed by the nicotine in cigarettes or the carbon monoxide but by the tar when a smoker breaths out only around 5% of the tar leaves the body the other 95% then goes on to cause cancer so therefore if you breath second hand smoke your body is not affected by the tar as it is also removed (yes over a slightly longer period of time) And the rest of the chemicals are naturally removed from the body so unless you are constantly around smokers (and I mean 24/7) non-stop it actually does not have that much of an adverse affect on the person. I agree that maybe it does not look or smell pleasant but why should that mean it is banned outright in public.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    why should i have to breath in your smoke? anyway i merely used smoking as an example.. i think people have just as much right not to be subjected to another persons behaviour.. public nudity maybe or spitting.. or more serious stuff. secondly, would you be happy to condone survival of the fittest if you were crippled and in a wheelchair or homeless.. just a couple of examples
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by presebjenada)
    why should i have to breath in your smoke? anyway i merely used smoking as an example.. i think people have just as much right not to be subjected to another persons behaviour.. public nudity maybe or spitting.. or more serious stuff. secondly, would you be happy to condone survival of the fittest if you were crippled and in a wheelchair or homeless.. just a couple of examples

    If i was crippled or homeless i wouldent want to be alive but this is not the point if survival of the fittest took place in this world it would not be a bad thing
    a) it would lead to many people dying at the start (ok a slightly bad point but mabye its necessary) this would lead to
    b) reduction in polution and to health problems among the world populas
    c)reduction in the growing food problems that are going to and have already led to millions of deaths worldwide
    and many other points
    then with the recooperation and the readjustment of human kind to its enviroment the world would then boom again with humans becoming stronger clever etc a lot faster then at the current rate
    think about it what happened to all the other species which may of evolved into mankind way back wen we where apes they died out and this has happened to every major species that is left on this planet and don't suggest we are above them because mentally we are but phisically we come no where near
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ba Ba Blacksheep have you any wool?

    Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anarchy Heaven)
    If i was crippled or homeless i wouldent want to be alive but this is not the point if survival of the fittest took place in this world it would not be a bad thing
    a) it would lead to many people dying at the start (ok a slightly bad point but mabye its necessary) this would lead to
    b) reduction in polution and to health problems among the world populas
    c)reduction in the growing food problems that are going to and have already led to millions of deaths worldwide
    OMFG
    Darwinian Communism. So far left it looks right wing. I suppose that you would place yourself as one of the leaders of the surviving elete.

    Survival of the fittest is the natural way for things to happen, but Human compassion will not alow this to take place. Therefore we are not striving to eliminate disease and hunger and other problems through other means. Only those whos comfort depends on the discomfort of others would ever want to speak out against this goal. That is where much of the NHS funding goes to. Their researchers then pass their information onto those who treat private patients. Without the NHS, few people, no matter how rich would live past 60.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    being a socialist ive tried to come up wit a way of creatinga communist society and it working, but at the moment it seems like just a dream. Countries have tried and failed trying to carry on marx's dream but it just doesnt work. heirarcy tho it seems unfair and wrong maybe really the only way to go........
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pal_sch)
    OMFG
    Darwinian Communism. So far left it looks right wing. I suppose that you would place yourself as one of the leaders of the surviving elete.

    Survival of the fittest is the natural way for things to happen, but Human compassion will not alow this to take place.
    "Survival of the fittest" is a tautology: Who are the fittest? those who survive. How do you know they're the fittest? They survived. It was not a term Darwin ever used in fact.
    The anarchist and evolutionist Kropotkin pointed out the importance of co-operation as a factor in survival, and Darwin acknowledged that this was an important element in survival which he had not properly considered in his books..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    "Survival of the fittest" is a tautology: Who are the fittest? those who survive. How do you know they're the fittest? They survived. It was not a term Darwin ever used in fact.
    The anarchist and evolutionist Kropotkin pointed out the importance of co-operation as a factor in survival, and Darwin acknowledged that this was an important element in survival which he had not properly considered in his books..
    I was speaking of the Darwinian movement, the people who don't know enough about evolution and say that human science, technology and behaviour should be tailored to follow the laws of nature. Anything that doesn't advance the cause of humanity should be destroyed.
    Of course, this is BS. It is a jumped up idea that can be taken the wrong way totaly. What you have to realise is that evolution takes hundreds of paths, of which ultimatly only one or two will succeed. The same is true of human behavior. To find these though, you have to try all of the paths available. No-one can predict these paths ahead of time and so no-one can be sure which one is best. There may be many years or decades or even centuries before there is even the slightest improvement.
    As far as survival of the fittest goes, that is an argument used for many different things, from school to politics to war. Here, I use it to represent the basic arguments behind Darwinism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To all after giving this line of though a thorough going through and the reading of some political works from communisim democracy and anarchy i have drawn upon 1 conclusion.
    Anarchy is not a step back to where there are no laws but mabye it is a step forward.
    if you think about it no1 political stance entirely works
    Communisum: the goverment can share out every material thing equally between every person but they cannot share out love joy happeniess friendship familly ect ect equally because this is impossible and you will always end up envying your neighbour because they achive in 1 or more of these emotions but you do not.
    Democracy:This fails ultimatly because people are forced into things they dont want to take part in ect ect which lead to rules being broken in an effort to achive what they really want
    Anarchy: mabye this fails because as you say it is impossible to have humans without law because of compassion or something els

    But mix all three together and mabye you will see my view

    this way you get the freedom to do what you want people can be who they are in its true essence and do all the things they want to do basically this is the anarchy peice of the jigsaw. Then you have the democratic peice of the puzzle which allows the people to form together to come to a decision in time of emergency shuch as a serial killer on the loose ect ect this allows problems to be solved in a fair manner not because one guy is stronger than the other or something like that.
    Communisim this is the most difficult peice of the puzzle to fit in because it has some very awkward shapes in it but i belive i have overcome them the problem with the above is it allows people to accumlate wealth ect and becme powerful and achive a political stance within the group so in fact you eliminate this by introducing communisim this take away the accumulation of too much wealth but at the same time allows people to carry on dooing what they want and having what they want instead of it being allocated im not trying to say communisium is the overying factor because you do not use it in its most extream form as it has been used in the past but in a more user friendly manner so instead of it saying you will own this this this and this it would say well you can have all you ant but at the same time not to much.

    I think this is what i am trying to say but if anyone can help me fit this comunisim peice of the jigsaw in more smoothly then i would be very greatful.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anarchy Heaven)
    Communisum: the goverment can share out every material thing equally between every person but they cannot share out love joy happeniess friendship familly ect ect equally because this is impossible and you will always end up envying your neighbour because they achive in 1 or more of these emotions but you do not.
    Democracy:This fails ultimatly because people are forced into things they dont want to take part in ect ect which lead to rules being broken in an effort to achive what they really want
    Anarchy: mabye this fails because as you say it is impossible to have humans without law because of compassion or something els
    Communism fails because people seek more power and create inequalities till equality fails.
    Democracy does not fail because no individual can change the democratic state, thus it is preserved.
    Anarchy does fail because desire for power, leads to increased differences in individual powers, leads to heirarchy which ultimately forms democracy (may or may not go through communism).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rIcHrD)
    Communism fails because people seek more power and create inequalities till equality fails.
    Democracy does not fail because no individual can change the democratic state, thus it is preserved.
    Anarchy does fail because desire for power, leads to increased differences in individual powers, leads to heirarchy which ultimately forms democracy (may or may not go through communism).
    well said
 
 
 
Poll
Do protests make a difference in political decisions?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.