Re: No police means anarchy? -- Adilbrand Noblesword's Hall of Warriors

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:51:46 02/03/03 Mon
Author: mt. healthy mountaineer
Subject: Re: No police means anarchy?
In reply to: mark van dyk 's message, "No police means anarchy?" on 14:57:18 02/03/03 Mon

No one has said that police = harmony. You have mischaracterized my comments. On the contrary, the very existence of them means that you have disharmony. And yes, usually having more and more police is a symptom of a larger problem.(compare the USSR and Mayberry, for example)

However, the idealized form of Anarchy depends on men acting rationally, compelled by an instilled moral code. My experience in the classroom tells me that a certain percentage of all people, no matter their race, color, class or purported creed have little or no conscience. They would kill a person with no more thought than you or I would give to killing a roach. A former Indianapolis police chief estimated that 50% of the crime in his area (appr. 500,000 people) was caused by the same 100 people. Whether they are born that way or raised that way matters little - they are there. They will always be there. (Unless of course - you espouse removing children from parents judged to be bad - but that would hardly be anarchy since you are forcing others to bend to your wishes.) Those people will be like Klingons on one of those idealized planets in Star Trek.

The police and courts, in a democratic society, would usually be a compromise between just eliminating them (usually the solution during our anarchy time in the Old West) and letting them run wild.

If we were to lose all government order soon would be restored - the way it always has (with the exception of some of the US American Indians who lacked sufficient population density) - with the return of the strong man - the man who eliminates the troublemakers. The very thing some of you fear from Bush.

I sincerely feel that anyone who espouses Anarchy is as naive as the person that claims that Communism "just might work" if we give it a chance. Your opinion of your fellow man, especially in large groups is much too elevated. Funny, you were just making comments about how we are so easily manipulated...

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: No police means anarchy? -- mvd, 16:17:56 02/03/03 Mon
- Re: No police means anarchy? -- Mt. healthy mountaineer, 07:48:48 02/04/03 Tue
  - Huh? Did I miss a meeting? (NT) -- mvd, 09:50:32 02/04/03 Tue
    - Well, what are you going to do with those that have no moral compass? (NT) -- Mt. Healthy mountaineer, 15:23:16 02/04/03 Tue
      - This -- mvd, 09:54:31 02/05/03 Wed
        Re: this -- mt. healthy mountaineer, 12:46:08 02/05/03 Wed
        Yes -- mvd, 13:47:02 02/05/03 Wed