Fate/EXTRA CCC - No Spoiler Zone

[Mike1984]

Don't let them?

That's like telling someone to not breath.

It's hard coded into the genes of social animals to follow the leader and form cliques. Anarchism is doomed to fail and only looks good on paper.

Not really. Some people do that, others do not.

But, even so, that is not the same as requiring a strong government. You can have a weak government with a constitution preventing them doing much other than providing basic services (and raising taxes to pay for them), and you can even allow those who do like the idea of anarchy to live under it.

O and all that looting and raping during government transition show SO much promise for anarchism.

Yeah, because people in the middle of a war are really going to suddenly be nice and peaceful....

Plus, there are plenty of wars where that has not happened, or at least has only happened to a limited extent. Not every war is followed by indiscriminate looting and raping.

Besides, I don't see what's so terrible about looting anyway. It's only property, they're not actually harming anyone.

[food]

Honestly, though, I'm not sure anarchy actually would work for society as a whole, although it can work for some subset of it. It needs to be voluntary to work, and some people simply cannot cope with the concept of not having a government to control their lives, or formal rules to abide by. If one does not exist, they will latch on to any authority figure they can find.

However, it's still a hell of a lot better than a brutal dictatorship.

At least for brutal dictatorship, you KNOW there's some sort of rule (shitty, but there is still one) to play by.

In anarchist society, the militia may beat you to death because some stupid reason, or some random dude may decide to kill you. Even though the philosophy of anarchism does not endorse such violence, I doubt anyone would play by the books if stuff turns real.

[I3uster]

Besides, I don't see what's so terrible about looting anyway. It's only property, they're not actually harming anyone.

Oh shit, this is the good stuff.

[food]

Lol, it's like Mike is not even trying anymore.

[Mike1984]

I believe this is the point.

People have tried to implement it before (Spain in the Civil War, Russia just after the revolution, the Paris commune), and generally it actually worked rather well. The only reason all of those fell is because a successful anarchist state is a serious threat to the existing order and, thus, governments invariably gang up against them to ensure their fall.

Plus, whilst anarchy is a good way to run a society (in theory, at least), it's a lousy way to run an army, at least if you take it to extremes.

[SeiKeo]

Besides, I don't see what's so terrible about looting anyway. It's only property, they're not actually harming anyone.

Tell that to the Korean greengrocer who had his storefront smashed in and burnt.

[Mcjon01]

That's like inviting everybody who found out his secret identity during that Facebook fiasco to show up and take all his shit. Something tells me he wouldn't like it very much.

[Kotonoha]

Besides, I don't see what's so terrible about looting anyway. It's only property, they're not actually harming anyone.

The worldview of Mike1984, everyone

[Mike1984]

At least for brutal dictatorship, you KNOW there's some sort of rule (shitty, but there is still one) to play by.

And?

The fact that arbitrary rules exist does not in any way make killing people for breaking them any less unreasonable. Plus, anarchies would have "rules" in the same sense, they're just less formal.

In anarchist society, the militia may beat you to death because some stupid reason, or some random dude may decide to kill you. Even though the philosophy of anarchism does not endorse such violence, I doubt anyone would play by the books if stuff turns real.

Right, because brutal dictatorships absolutely never beat people to death for "stupid reasons". The Syrian government is totally only killing rebels, and not arresting random people and killing people on the suspicion that they might be in some way involved with the rebel movement.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh shit, this is the good stuff.

Right, because property rights are far more important than the right to life and such things....

[Tobias]

Besides, I don't see what's so terrible about looting anyway. It's only property, they're not actually harming anyone.

my brain hurts.

[SeiKeo]

That's like inviting everybody who found out his secret identity during that Facebook fiasco to show up and take all his shit. Something tells me he wouldn't like it very much.

Yeah, Mike, I need a new HDD, can I get yours?

[Mike1984]

my brain hurts.

What?

Explain to me why property rights are so fundamental. Why people have an absolute right to something just because they have a piece of paper that says they do.

Yeah, Mike, I need a new HDD, can I get yours?

Well, no, I kind-of need my HDD. Big companies don't need the hundreds of TVs they sell.

I'm not saying looting is perfectly OK, but I don't think it's anything like as big an issue as you're making out. In particular, an anarchist society would be collectivised (mostly, at least) anyway.

[TypeWannabe]

I think you guys are talking about two different things. Mike is talking about the idealistic view on anarchy, where people aren't assholes, and you guys are talking about the realistic view on anarchy, where people are assholes.

[Kotonoha]

Right, because property rights are far more important than the right to life and such things....

Some people do need their property to live. If you own a shop and someone runs off with all your merchandise, what do you do?

[Mcjon01]

You find the bastard who took your stuff and shoot him in the face. Anarchy!

[I3uster]

Right, because property rights are far more important than the right to life and such things....

You know, "harm" isn't limited to injury of the body, right?

If someone burns my house down and loots everything inside making me homeless and miserable, he's doing me harm. Without touching me even.

Fucking miracles.

[food]

You find the bastard who took your stuff and shoot him in the face. Anarchy!

But what if he has better guns than you? And your wife also ran off with him because he has better guns?

[SeiKeo]

Well, no, I kind-of need my HDD. Big companies don't need the hundreds of TVs they sell.

I'm not saying looting is perfectly OK, but I don't think it's anything like as big an issue as you're making out. In particular, an anarchist society would be collectivised (mostly, at least) anyway.

I bet a child in Africa needs food more badly than you need your HDD, why don't you sell it? Doesn't he have a right to life?

[I3uster]

I think you guys are talking about two different things. Mike is talking about the idealistic view on anarchy, where people aren't assholes, and you guys are talking about the realistic view on anarchy, where people are assholes.

No, see, I think the problem is that Mike believes what he writes.

And it kinda stops being hillarious and starts being sad pretty fast.

- - - Updated - - -

But what if he has better guns than you? And your wife also ran off with him because he has better guns?

THE FREEDOM OF ANARCHY!

[Tobias]

But what if he has better guns than you? And your wife also ran off with him because he has better guns?

then you need to do more upper body time and stop only doing the treadmill.