Anarchists make coherent points when pointing out society's problems, but discredit themselves because they have no logical solution - all they present is pure defiance of the laws of nature.

Would the human race need to absolve anarchism, or would it need to consist of one person to work?

Uncle,

Finally a post that makes sense. Not only that I agree with you.

The problem is your premise closes further discussion because it (the first sentence) says it all.

You don't have to be extremely bright to find fault- any joe-sixpack does that on a daily basis. The solutions to those problems may or may not be simple, but are most likely, difficult to implement. If the solution was really easy, that problem would already have been long gone.

Nox

if you see a person getting bit by a dog, the first thing you might do is save the person. that doesnt solve the problem of the dog bitting someone else does it. offering a solution on how a dog should be always kept on a leash or the owner must train him/her, when the person is being bitten wont help it make the dog stop bitting that person.

- [blackh0le]

"Uncle", why dont you get off your friend's SN and make your own? Youre making a bad name for him.

It's my screen name now, and I'm hoping that my reputation and personality will soon replace his for this name.

quote:

---

all they present is pure defiance of the laws of nature.

---

Anarchists defy the laws of nature? That's new to me. Last I heard, it was the Authority who defied laws of nature by implementing it's System on the people.

Besides, in our world, the Capitalists are the positive claimants. If they want me to accept the status quo, they must first legitimize it. Until then, however, I will keep on searching for something better.

Without a system of laws to unite and represent the People, the whole concept of the People doesn't exist. Anarchism destroys the structure that allows true freedom, and creates for the most brutal exploitation and abuse of power possible in nature. It defies the laws of natures because without a state or enforce rights, their are no rights. While the State can corrupt, the state also prevents corruption.

Anarchism is the most natural form of human corruption, which defies the laws of nature. How? By going against every natural law in existence, allowing personal power to destroy natural limits - abolishing the significance of tribes, factions, destroying the concept of unity, which protects all freedom and civil rights. Anarchism defies the laws of physics, since it contradicts it's ideals in the degree that it allows for corruption. Because of this, it physically cannot work.

quote:

---

Without a system of laws to unite and represent the People, the whole concept of the People doesn't exist

---

What happened to the people? Can't they represent themselves either?

quote:

---

Anarchism destroys the structure that allows true freedom, and creates for the most brutal exploitation and abuse of power possible in nature.

---

If by that 'structure that allows true freedom' you mean the Government (or the System which the government has created), then I sincerely pity you.

quote:

---

It defies the laws of natures because without a state or enforce rights, their are no rights.

---

You have the right to do whatever you do and face the consequances.

Besides, since when does the State enforces your rights? That's bullshit. The State only grants you those rights which it judges harmless - the rest of your rights however are taken away because obviously you are to stupid to decide what to do with your own body and yourself.

quote:

---

Anarchism is the most natural form of human corruption, which defies the laws of nature. How? By going against every natural law in existence, allowing personal power to destroy natural limits - abolishing the significance of tribes, factions, destroying the concept of unity, which protects all freedom and civil rights.

---

Anarchism abolishes the concept of unity? Boy, you got a lot to learn about anarchy.

I suggest you review whatever material you used to form your opinion - you obviously missed the whole purpose of direct democracy.

Uncle,

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
It's my screen name now, and I'm hoping that my reputation and personality will soon replace his for this name.

---

I see this, I believe it not. You began this thread at 0137 on 1 June. The idiot post that you put on the Che Guevara topic was at 1903 on 1 June, a full seventeen and one-half hours later.

What I suspect is that you realized people were getting tired of your attention-getting drivel and have come up with new persona as a smoke-screen.

Why am I making these comments?

A. I despise the fact that you think I'm stupid enough to believe your lie (new person)...I don't.

B. The one thing I required of you in order for me to respond to you was that you get an education. You have had that and for whatever immature reason you wasted everyone's time with bovine excrement.

I responded to this post initially with a comment about this post finally showing you had a brain.

I will respond to your cogent posts and will slam dunk you if you revert to your idiocy again.

And as I said before, what others may believe is up to them...as for me, If it looks like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck, then it must be.......a cow (if I believed you).

Nox

The more direct the democracy, the more corruption. Those with money will buy their way in, kill their openents, and take control. The People cannot maintain control democratically, they need a strong Dictatorship. Then a real democracy will be created, a centralized democracy, where one party will consider the views of the People without allowing for corruption and maintaining stability.

No, I made the Che Guervera post, as well as this post. I made all the posts under my name recently. About a month ago, I started posting under this name, which my friend gave to me. I plan to replace whatever qualities were attributed to this name prior to my arrival with my personal qualities.

Uncle,

Looks to me like you need to be your own man with your own identity.

Registering with Totse is incredibly easy.

However, it appears that your ego is after the number in the number of posts block.

I can assure you that two things are true of me:

A. Your age is irrelavant. A ten-year-old with an intelligent thought/question will get my best response/answer.

B. The quantity of posts is likewise irrelavant. Remember that kid with the "note to self" garbage?

My point: Get your own name/identity.

Nox

I probably will eventually. I don't have my own computer or my own email address, so I don't know if it's worth going about that. Whatever the point is, UnclNastyFingerz is ME and nobody else now. I consider myself somewhat superior to the person that had the name before me, and since he was somewhat oblivious, I can have no problem posting with the name that's automatically signed on when I get online.

quote:

---

Then a real democracy will be created, a centralized democracy, where one party will consider the views of the People without allowing for corruption and maintaining stability.

---

That's extremly naive.

To say that corruption will be eliminated (or almost) by building a strong Government is rediculous reasoning. By creating a small powerful elite (the Authority), you're only encouraging the corruption to occur.

If the elite legitamately represents the People, the People will control the elite.

Yes, that's the same reasoning they used to describe representative capitalist democracy.

Oh and look, it hasn't eliminated corruptions, has it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
...About a month ago, I started posting under this name, which my friend gave to me.

---

'Uncle Nasty Fingers'. What a prize! Can I buy it off ya?

quote:

---

I plan to replace whatever qualities were attributed to this name prior to my arrival with my personal qualities.

---

You don't have any. Somebody has flipped your lid open and poured theirs in your skull. You could post under any name, and it would be instantly recognizable.

Start thinking for yourself.

Representetive capitalist society MADE Communism corrupt. In a communist word, the state would absolve the people and the people would disolve corruption.

quote:

---

Representetive capitalist society MADE Communism corrupt.

---

Cute.

While I agree that Capitalists tried lots of methods to destroy communism and therefore left the communist Government little choice but to react to such threat (and same thing vice versa actually), you're not actually going to tell me that corruption oncly occurs because of capitalism, are you?