Merry-juana

I say Anarchy is what we need to achieve peace (in the long term), so I go for both.
Sure at the beginning anarchy would cause destruction and chaos, but I am sad to say that it is necessary in the long term. I wouldn't want it to happen before my grandparents dies, since I love them too much, and I do not want them to get hurt. But, what would be good if we get anarchy slowly. So that freedom is given slowly, unlike what happened in South Africa with apartheid being removed before the masses was educated, and they didn't know how to handle it. What should happen is that first victimless crimes should not be crimes, like the smoking of Marijuana. Then, when people start to handle that, you can give them more freedom, and the system less control, untill we eventually the system and the people have the same power. Personally, I do not think total anarchy is to just suddenly given, but given slowly.

troublemaker_42

Anarchy isnm't defined as a slow dissolution of all law though. Anarchy, by the very nature of the word itself, cannot be controlled or dolled out in doses. How do you propose an "organized" destruction of the system as we know it? Anarchy isn't defined as the equalization of the people and their government. Its defined as, in the simplest of terms, as political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control. If you want anarchy, you cannot have it "regulated" by the government, because, by its very nature, anarchy means there IS NO government control of any kind. If you are going to argue in favor of anarchy, you must fully grasp what that emcompasses. As a civilization raised with the "system" few of us can begin to TRUELY comprehend what anarchy would actually entail. Imagine a world with no roads maintained, no education publically funded, no help for those who can't help themselves, no banking, no credit, no healthcare, no way of transporting goods from point A to point B, etc. Those who advocate anarchy have to be willing to sacrifice everything and anything they currently know. AS much as we like to bitch about "the system" and "the man keeping us down" few of us are prepared to handle a world without the man and without the system. Anarchy isn't something that one can "phase in", because anarchy, in its truest form, is an absence of any type of control.

__________________
Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."


If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?