Tyrranny or Anarchy?

[David Floyd]

I'd prefer anarchy.

[Aeson]

I think they are basically the same thing. Tyranny is just Anarchy where someone has a much bigger 'gun' in comparison to everyone else.

[NeOmega]

the weak prefer tyranny
the strong prefer anarchy

[Urban Ranger]

No matter how strong you are, you are not stronger than a gun.

[NeOmega]

oh no, money can buy lots of guns with people willing to use them

and ask Saddam how Fear can get even more guns with people behind them.

[Ramo]

In an anarchy, there's little to no authority, not only public, but private. What y'all describe as anarchy (where the strong screw over the weak, etc.) is absolutely antithetical to anarchism.

[Urban Ranger]

Yes?

What's to make sure the strong doesn't screw over the weak in an anarchy?

[Ramo]

Depends on the anarchist you're talking to. Personally, I have no qualms with a reasonable police, court, and prison system. Some anarchists would say that in a socialist society, most crime wouldn't exist.

[Kepler]

A Hobson's choice, but tyranny. There's an Arab saying, "better a hundred years of tyranny than one night of anarchy." Tyranny builds institutions that are later subverted to overthrow it. Even if it lingers, tyranny can allow art, science, and culture to flourish.

Anarchy is an adolescent fantasy that merely maims and kills.

[Ramo]

Bull****.

[tinyp3nis]

Some anarchists would say that in a socialist society, most crime wouldn't exist.

So do these anarchists know any other people besides their mothers?

[Kepler]

Originally posted by Ramo
Bull****.

What an odd misspelling of "History."

[Ramo]

So do these anarchists know any other people besides their mothers?

They have a perfectly valid argument. There is absolutely no doubt most crime arises from poverty, directly or indirectly. Compare the crime rates between some inner city ghetto and a rich, rural area.

But I find it questionable that the abolition of a reformed police and prison system would reduce coercion enough to justify the crime such a society would have. I think they're stuck in the past, where prisons were universally hellholes, and the police was no different from the people they lock up.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Ramo


They have a perfectly valid argument. There is absolutely no doubt most crime arises from poverty, directly or indirectly. Compare the crime rates between some inner city ghetto and a rich, rural area.

But I find it questionable that the abolition of a reformed police and prison system would reduce coercion enough to justify the crime such a society would have. I think they're stuck in the past, where prisons were universally hellholes, and the police was no different from the people they lock up.

I mean really, I don't know much about these things but something that is able to provide everyone somewhat equal wealth doesn't sound like anarchy at all.

Edit:typo

[Ramo]

What an odd misspelling of "History."

I seriously doubt you have much historical knowledge of anarchist societies (Catalonia and other parts of Spain during the Spanish Civil War, certain parts of Mexico during the Mexican Revolution, the Ukraine after the Russian Revolution, the Paris Commune, etc.). There's no particular association with maiming and killing, and certainly some of these examples had flowering of science and culture at the time (particularly Catalonia).