imperistan Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 TV's and cars are not resources, and it would it not just be one person working toward these ends. After necessary functions are already taken care of, you'd be surprised just how many people out of a 1000 have nothing much to do. What do you count as "being detrimental to society?" How do you implant that into laws? :psyduck: You're not serious.... Read my post again, I said America was not just created through immigration. You said your system relies on people having the same ideals right? How are people born into this system supposed to have the exact same anarchist views as you all the time? I imagine you don't understand how families work. I also imagine that you've completely missed the fact that I've said that they don't have to have the same views. When you said "Why would they?" what were you replying to in my post? I could of misunderstood that due to poor formatting, but to my understanding of it you were replying to the family part. It was that part. And you inserted random nonsense into my argument. Pretty sure you won't have much of a answer for this but I will ask it anyways. Have you even considered a military? 5000 people won't stand up against anything. 5000 people also won't be much of a target, especially presuming peaceful establishment. Location also plays a big factor. If its near or even in a first-world (or hell even second-world) country it will likely never be attacked by any other country other than those countries its based around and/or in, and with them thats the entire point of peaceful establishment. Violent revolution won't work, especially against a nation like the US or the UK, so peacefully and mutually reaching separation is the ideal method of establishment. The feasibility of that, though, is worth enough for a whole new topic (and as such belongs in a new topic) and really isn't limited to just anarchy but secession in general. And no, I won't explain what I've already explained. Read the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 TV's and cars are not resources, and it would it not just be one person working toward these ends. After necessary functions are already taken care of, you'd be surprised just how many people out of a 1000 have nothing much to do. What do you count as "being detrimental to society?" How do you implant that into laws? :psyduck: You're not serious.... Read my post again, I said America was not just created through immigration. You said your system relies on people having the same ideals right? How are people born into this system supposed to have the exact same anarchist views as you all the time? I imagine you don't understand how families work. I also imagine that you've completely missed the fact that I've said that they don't have to have the same views. When you said "Why would they?" what were you replying to in my post? I could of misunderstood that due to poor formatting, but to my understanding of it you were replying to the family part. It was that part. And you inserted random nonsense into my argument. Pretty sure you won't have much of a answer for this but I will ask it anyways. Have you even considered a military? 5000 people won't stand up against anything. 5000 people also won't be much of a target, especially presuming peaceful establishment. Location also plays a big factor. If its near or even in a first-world (or hell even second-world) country it will likely never be attacked by any other country other than those countries its based around and/or in, and with them thats the entire point of peaceful establishment. Violent revolution won't work, especially against a nation like the US or the UK, so peacefully and mutually reaching separation is the ideal method of establishment. The feasibility of that, though, is worth enough for a whole new topic (and as such belongs in a new topic) and really isn't limited to just anarchy but secession in general. And no, I won't explain what I've already explained. Read the topic.Were is your nation planning on being located then? I was serious. What do you actually count as being detrimental to society? Anyone who doesn't share in your country is detrimental, so how extreme does it have to be for you to consider them detrimental? How do you think peoples family and friends won't ever die then? How are you supposed to stop that? Unless you are planning on perfecting medicine people will die still. You need resources to create TVs and cars. How are you planning on getting those resources? You have yet to answer that. How are you planning on funding huge building projects? Being peaceful does not protect you from military attacks. It lowers the chances obviously, but if the reward is far greater then the risk people will invade you regardless. Did you not previously say it was a society of anarchists only? Did I miss something here or did you change your mind?You said things like "Most humans are not the intended audience of anarchism at this time." How do you plan on starting up your country by the way? Can you explain your individual system in detail? I looked throughout the topic and it seems most of your posts is you on the defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 If this society were to be done again, I'd likely suggest somewhere in the northwest of the US or out in Europe somewhere. But that doesn't really matter much. I'm not advocating this. I'm not dignifying this one with an answer. :facepalm: ??? No one ever said no one would die. Seriously, stop inserting this random nonsense into my argument. How does any other country get those kinds of resources I wonder? Well, there's your answer. Being peaceful does not protect you from military attacks. It lowers the chances obviously, but if the reward is far greater then the risk people will invade you regardless. So you're suggesting that a small patch of land with a small population is going to be a reward greater than the risk it would be of pissing off any surrounding first world or second world countries that will in all likelihood not approve of having some random nation try to start a war so close to them? Sorry but no. Honestly, what you're suggesting means that the Vatican would have had to been sacked already by some random nation. (oh, did I mention that the Vatican is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, besides the difference in government?) Did you not previously say it was a society of anarchists only? Yes, and? How do you plan on starting up your country by the way? Can you explain your individual system in detail? I looked throughout the topic and it seems most of your posts is you on the defense. Read the topic. I'm not explaining it again. :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 The Vatican if attacked would probably start a world war. Comparing some random fake idealist country to that is silly. I will go into the war thing in general later. Cop out, okay. You don't see to understand that peoples families can still be lost in your government. Explain why. Countries get these resources through trade and other methods. I need to make it clear that a small number of people won't be able to produce certain things. You need to o large scale building projects, large scale mining projects, mass produce the technology and tools requires, and then actually make the things. If you set up in/near the US or any modern country I doubt the government would want a new nation right near them. A nation nearby the US with its own laws could cause serious issues such as smuggling unless you created strict international agreements. Not to mention a extremely easy way for terrorists to get into the country. You do realize that "I've said that they don't have to have the same views" completely contradicts you statement that is a society of anarchists only right? Which one is it? I read the topic. None of your posts that I saw said anything at all about your exact plans on how the country would start up and function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 The Vatican if attacked would probably start a world war. Comparing some random fake idealist country to that is silly. I will go into the war thing in general later. You can just hear the whoooooosh as the point goes way over your head. Cop out, okay. Yes, its a cop out to not dignify a stupid question with an answer. You don't see to understand that peoples families can still be lost in your government. Explain why. ??? Okay. Explain what the bloody hell you are even talking about. NO ONE ever said no one would die, and I fail to see the point you're making in pointing it out. Or are you doing exactly what I've said you've been doing, holding anarchy to inexplicable standards you're apparently not even holding other countries to? Countries get these resources through trade and other methods. I need to make it clear that a small number of people won't be able to produce certain things. You need to o large scale building projects, large scale mining projects, mass produce the technology and tools requires, and then actually make the things. So are you going to make a point or what? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania If you set up in/near the US or any modern country I doubt the government would want a new nation right near them. A nation nearby the US with its own laws could cause serious issues such as smuggling unless you created strict international agreements. Not to mention a extremely easy way for terrorists to get into the country. This is the point in mutual separation as opposed to violent revolution. Obviously the adjacent country (or countries) would have to work with the new one, and thats something that will inevitably be discussed and decided upon at the same time as the terms of separation would be. You do realize that "I've said that they don't have to have the same views" completely contradicts you statement that is a society of anarchists only right? Which one is it? No, it doesn't. I read the topic. None of your posts that I saw said anything at all about your exact plans on how the country would start up and function. Then apparently you have trouble reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I have trouble believing you are serious. Going to just quit here. If you are not going to cherry pick my posts and only reply to what you want I am not going to bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I have trouble believing you are serious. Going to just quit here. If you are not going to cherry pick my posts and only reply to what you want I am not going to bother. I replied to everything except the dumb question with the obvious answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisnpuppy Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 This "debate" and I use that term loosely is going no where and has been for some time. Closing this thread~Lisnpuppy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisnpuppy Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I have trouble believing you are serious. Going to just quit here. If you are not going to cherry pick my posts and only reply to what you want I am not going to bother. I replied to everything except the dumb question with the obvious answer. I have warned you and warned you about saying things in a more respectful way. Strike 2 for you and this is a 3 and out. Stop talking to people like this or you will get a one-way ticket out the door.~Lisnpuppy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts