Silk Posted October 28, 2003 Report Posted October 28, 2003 Anarchy is no government. What you said doesnt really make sense. Make your own laws could be ethics you live by.
Bacchus Posted October 29, 2003 Report Posted October 29, 2003 this guy was a noble in the ninetenth century. He had a very vested interest in bashing democracy, even if it was a little late.Although this may true, McAulay was nonetheless a member of parliement. Which was, might i remind you, a Tory one...which means that although it is a form of democraoy, it is one where tradition is legit. Secondly, note that democracy doesn't exist, republics exist. That creates slight differences that increase the life span. That in itself is false, in my opinion. Although pure democracy would be impractible (spelling) nowadays, democracy (as in the people's voice) is still very much in use even if those "people" voices aren't as strong as they used to be. A democracy is only a way to exercise executive power, the structure of which is determined by the people (a cons!@#$%^&*ution), some chooses a republic (with a head of the nation, a president), other chooses a Tory democracy, or a representative democracy where a party have power but vote on a representative. How many democracies were there before 1857? Not many.Quite a lot actually...most of europe, US, canada, etc. democracy wasn't done as it is nowadays...but those were still democracies. ...the citizens (or at least somebody) has a legal means to take people out of power Try putting bush out of power, or Swcharzie ...:wink: Overall, my point is that there are options open to republics, which democracies do not have, that can prevent this situation from happening. Republics are democracies, only a one of its many incarnations. And representative democracy, or social democracy, or Tory, or pure democracy, have something a republic doesn't have. if you're interested in McAulay's work, here it is: McAulay's work -Bacc
Fluffy White Bunny Posted October 29, 2003 Report Posted October 29, 2003 Hmm, Live-Wire you do stand on a good point though. I'm wondering, what kind of government do you think would be better?
Live-Wire Posted October 29, 2003 Author Report Posted October 29, 2003 I can't say -- this is not something that can be argued in abstract terms, at all. My ideal government is one in which I am a member of an elite class that has all of the wealth save that much required to prevent the people who are not members of the elite class from rising up against the government. But that is because I am an Upper-middle class White Jewish American - my ideal form of government is a direct manifestation of my personal situation. The entire point, the entire reason why economics and political science can not be sciences, is because there is no abstract, there is only reality. The best form of government for the United States of America, circa 2003, is a representative democracy. The best form of government for the People's Republic of China, circa 2003, is a supposed-socialist oligarchy. The frustrating part about "studying" political science and economics is that the more advanced your study, the more you realize that your studies are useless. What will happen tommorow is entirely unpredictable, and the ripple effects of events that happen are unforseeable. History can not, and does not, predict the future. Abstraction and theoretical discussions are illogical. Reality is composed of an infinitely large number of things all happening to cause it, and to use a cliche that is highly appropriate, only hindsight is 20/20.
Live-Wire Posted October 29, 2003 Author Report Posted October 29, 2003 And please stop making horribly argued, and cliched comments:There is no such thing as anarchy.There is no such thing as democracy. There also is no such thing as a car. There is no example of the absolute true manifestation of "a car". Every example of cars in our reality are interpretations, improvements, and manifestations of the theory of a car. By your line of reasoning, there is no such thing as anything.
Silk Posted October 29, 2003 Report Posted October 29, 2003 When i say there is no such thing as anarchy i mean there will never be anarchy, it will never exist. The idea of anarchy is a reality but anarchy itself is not going to happen.
Bacchus Posted October 29, 2003 Report Posted October 29, 2003 off course there won't be any "voted" on anarchy. We will never have a consensus decision on becoming anarchists. That would be beside the point of anarchy itself. but one could imagine a scenario where a gouvernement violently disappear (a coup, a putsh) and where the perpetrator can't take social control over its citizens. If i'm not mistaken anarchy can be understand from more than 1 point of view, the one i just tried to described is one of them. I think that thereS' another one of a more utopian nature where there'S no governement but some sort of solidarity...not sure though.
Aileron Posted October 29, 2003 Report Posted October 29, 2003 Secondly, note that democracy doesn't exist, republics exist. That creates slight differences that increase the life span. That in itself is false, in my opinion. Although pure democracy would be impractible (spelling) nowadays, democracy (as in the people's voice) is still very much in use even if those "people" voices aren't as strong as they used to be. A democracy is only a way to exercise executive power, the structure of which is determined by the people (a cons!@#$%^&*ution), some chooses a republic (with a head of the nation, a president), other chooses a Tory democracy, or a representative democracy where a party have power but vote on a representative.I was being technical. How many democracies were there before 1857? Not many.Quite a lot actually...most of europe, US, canada, etc. democracy wasn't done as it is nowadays...but those were still democracies.That second part was my point. ...the citizens (or at least somebody) has a legal means to take people out of power Try putting bush out of power, or Swcharzie ...:wink:It worked for Davis. Also, Bush has a reelection coming up next year. Overall, my point is that there are options open to republics, which democracies do not have, that can prevent this situation from happening. Republics are democracies, only a one of its many incarnations. And representative democracy, or social democracy, or Tory, or pure democracy, have something a republic doesn't have. if you're interested in McAulay's work, here it is: McAulay's work -Bacc No, I'm not interested really. All he does is criticise democracy, he doesn't offer anything constructive. He doesn't have any real idea of his own, he is merely content in bringing down somebody else's.
Live-Wire Posted October 29, 2003 Author Report Posted October 29, 2003 And I'm saying there will never be a "car". The point is, nothing ever happens exactly as it is defined - definitions losely encomp!@#$%^&* the idea behind what something is. There has never been, and never will be: anarchy, communism, democracy, dictatorships, oligarchies. Should I continue?
Yupa Posted October 29, 2003 Report Posted October 29, 2003 no, don't bother trying to explain it, Live, some people just don't understand
Aileron Posted October 29, 2003 Report Posted October 29, 2003 Actually, everyone here does, it is just that the statement is a matter of technicality and therefore irrelevent.
Silk Posted October 29, 2003 Report Posted October 29, 2003 Anarchy is the oppostion of all government and authority. But, if you organize to take down a government, isnt that itself going against anarchy and what you say it is. To organize something like this requires order, laws to abide on what to do and not to do and someone in authority to take control of the masses opposing authority.
MonteZuma Posted October 29, 2003 Report Posted October 29, 2003 ...The entire point, the entire reason why economics and political science can not be sciences, is because there is no abstract, there is only reality.The thing about conventional scientific wisdom is that the 'reality' changes all the time. At one time, conventional scientific wisdom was that we were about to enter an ice age. Now conventional science tells us we are about to enter a period of unprecedented warming. Reality is often an illusion, or at best a hypothesis. The frustrating part about "studying" political science and economics is that the more advanced your study, the more you realize that your studies are useless. What will happen tommorow is entirely unpredictable, and the ripple effects of events that happen are unforseeable. History can not, and does not, predict the future. Abstraction and theoretical discussions are illogical. Reality is composed of an infinitely large number of things all happening to cause it, and to use a cliche that is highly appropriate, only hindsight is 20/20.Well yeah, but that goes for many branches of science. Global warming is a classic example. Physical scientists, ecologists, economists, social scientists...none can make up their minds about what is going on now...let alone what will happen in the future. Economics is no different to any branch of science that needs to deal with infinite complexity. Monte.
Aileron Posted October 29, 2003 Report Posted October 29, 2003 Oh wait, I get it now. Silke's point is that provided pure governments could exist, anarchy would still not exist. Her point is that it cannot exist not because of the lack of a completely pure system but because anarchy contradicts itself, even in pure form.
Silk Posted October 29, 2003 Report Posted October 29, 2003 Haha exactly, just needed someone witha vocabulary to put my idea down.
Bacchus Posted October 30, 2003 Report Posted October 30, 2003 I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that anarchy isn't "opposition" to a political body/structure, but an abscence (spelling) of government. If you overthrow a gov, it's a revolution. The time between the coup and the new gov. would be (if social structure are chaotic) anarchy. But this is playing on words
madhaha Posted October 30, 2003 Report Posted October 30, 2003 Offtopic: WTF silk is female? You could use Plato's anology of the cave. There is a perfect form of government, an ideology. Real governments are imperfect/compromised copies of this.
Bacchus Posted October 30, 2003 Report Posted October 30, 2003 Anarchy doesnt necessary mean chaos.It means abscence of governement, etc. 1. sence of any form of political authority. 2. Political disorder and confusion. 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. [New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a-1 + arkhos, ruler; see -arch.] Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth EditionCopyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. anarchy An"arch*y, n. [Gr. ?: cf. F. anarchie. See Anarch.] 1. Absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion. Spread anarchy and terror all around. --Cowper. 2. Hence, confusion or disorder, in general. There being then . . . an anarchy, as I may term it, in authors and their re?koning of years. --Fuller. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. anarchy n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government) [syn: lawlessness] Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University let's say that if it's not necessarily chaos, it's quite messy.
madhaha Posted October 30, 2003 Report Posted October 30, 2003 Silke's point is that provided pure governments could exist, anarchy would still not exist. Her point is that That kind of implies that you are female does it not?
Aileron Posted October 30, 2003 Report Posted October 30, 2003 So ur a guy who named himself Silk. You know, after a while I just don't get suprised by these kind of names.
Silk Posted October 31, 2003 Report Posted October 31, 2003 I know what anarchy means Bacchus. I didnt see the "she" part in it. And why would the name Silk be feminine? People like you with a one track mind assume stuff like that.
Recommended Posts