The Biggest Problems of this World

[Calandale]

waking up, i should imagine.

I wish it were that simple.
Some women are sexist pigs,
unfortunately. There was this
old guy too though.

I wonder why they can't see how
close to danger they are, screwing with
me when I'm dancing. It's gotta be
clear as hell that I'm NOT sane.

what does this even mean? 

It means that I got groped, in the midst
of dancing. And, if I wasn't in some
random redneck bar, where I didn't
know the bouncers, I would have
struck.

[Lucifer]

the moral of that incident is obvious, then - serves you right for going into a random redneck bar. 

[Calandale]

the moral of that incident is obvious, then - serves you right for going into a random redneck bar. 

A couple of good bands.
Plus, they'll get used to
me, and it'll become my
kinda redneck bar, instead. 

[Lucifer]

fight from the inside, eh?   

[Calandale]

fight from the inside, eh?   

Or at least have the regulars convinced that
I'm dangerous.

[odeon]

This is soo typical: When you expect to get flamed, nothing happens...
 

I could flame you but you really need to divide your stuff into more paragraphs or I won't bother reading your stuff and any flaming will have to be at random. For all I know, I could agree with whatever you're saying.

lol.  lose the will to live about two sentences in, eh?  seems reasonable.

We'll have to see if the n00b sticks around. *I* think I'm being very reasonable.

[Lucifer]

This is soo typical: When you expect to get flamed, nothing happens...
 

I could flame you but you really need to divide your stuff into more paragraphs or I won't bother reading your stuff and any flaming will have to be at random. For all I know, I could agree with whatever you're saying.

lol.  lose the will to live about two sentences in, eh?  seems reasonable.

We'll have to see if the n00b sticks around. *I* think I'm being very reasonable.

you generally are.  however, i think, on balance, i prefer you when you're being unreasonable... 

[odeon]

Oh, I can be unreasonable, too, if you want me to. Let's reason about this some, shall we?

[Lucifer]

nah, don't worry about reasoning it out - just get your kit off and be unreasonable with me.    

[vodz]

#1.) Lack of a Just Government System
There is no just system to govern or manage humans. We have (or would have) systems to manage horses, pigs, cattle, etc. justly in farming, assuring they all get what they need to survive, food, water, a place to sleep, etc.
Not so for ourselves though. Dictatorship or communism is obviously not just. But neither is democracy and capitalism. Even in a direct democracy such as in Switzerland, where people get to vote about a lot of things, a MAJORITY decides and rules. That's not totally different than a dictatorship. Instead of one single dictator, it's just a majority of people who are the dictators. Admittedly, that's usually much better, but it's not just. At least certainly not for the minorities. Because the minorities will simply be overruled and their rights and interests ignored and trampled when they conflict with the interests of the majority.

There is no just system of governing people because governing people is unjust.

The only way for everyone to get what they want is anarchy. Doesn't mean breaking windows and throwing chairs.
Certainly doesn't mean everyone will get what they want.

[Calandale]

The only way for everyone to get what they want is anarchy. Doesn't mean breaking windows and throwing chairs.
Certainly doesn't mean everyone will get what they want.

This is a contradictory statement, as far as I see.
AND, if everyone can't get what they want, well,
I'm more than happy if it's just me who does.

[drewtheyellow]

#1.) Lack of a Just Government System
There is no just system to govern or manage humans. We have (or would have) systems to manage horses, pigs, cattle, etc. justly in farming, assuring they all get what they need to survive, food, water, a place to sleep, etc.
Not so for ourselves though. Dictatorship or communism is obviously not just. But neither is democracy and capitalism. Even in a direct democracy such as in Switzerland, where people get to vote about a lot of things, a MAJORITY decides and rules. That's not totally different than a dictatorship. Instead of one single dictator, it's just a majority of people who are the dictators. Admittedly, that's usually much better, but it's not just. At least certainly not for the minorities. Because the minorities will simply be overruled and their rights and interests ignored and trampled when they conflict with the interests of the majority.

There is no just system of governing people because governing people is unjust.

The only way for everyone to get what they want is anarchy. Doesn't mean breaking windows and throwing chairs.
Certainly doesn't mean everyone will get what they want.

Well, I would argue that instead of justice the aim of government should be efficiency and freedom with a trade-off between the two on some cases. If all systems are imperfect then we pick the lesser of all evils. Justice though is an empty concept on some level, as it is either a moral preference that has indiscernible truth value or it simply relates to existing law. Really though, even when advocating anarchy there has to be a choice of anarchic societies as modes of human organization termed as anarchy exist from the communist to the capitalist, with all sorts of unusual fringes such as primitive, green, feminist, christian, etc. Really though, I would not label myself an anarchist as I don't think that we will find a sudden utopia.

[vodz]

The only way for everyone to get what they want is anarchy. Doesn't mean breaking windows and throwing chairs.
Certainly doesn't mean everyone will get what they want.

This is a contradictory statement, as far as I see.
AND, if everyone can't get what they want, well,
I'm more than happy if it's just me who does.

I was well aware of that. Why should we get what we want anyhow? Eliminate expectations and you will fail to be disappointed.

drewtheyellow hits the nail on the head, government and morals collide at some point though, and this is often guided by religion.
Morals are required for people to coexist, which people seem to have a penchant for. We have to try to think the same in order to each get what we want, i.e. we must all want the same things.
 
I've read about some forms of anarchic society as you mention, and neither will I agree to anarchism for the same reason you state.

[drewtheyellow]

drewtheyellow hits the nail on the head, government and morals collide at some point though, and this is often guided by religion.
Morals are required for people to coexist, which people seem to have a penchant for. We have to try to think the same in order to each get what we want, i.e. we must all want the same things.

Well, that is certainly true. In fact, no government can exist that does not conflict with one being's morality and that is true whether or not we have religion or not given the many advocacy groups and ideologies. Some level of morality is necessary I suppose, or at least a strong framework of proper incentives, the former being more commonly found than the latter. We must have desires that are similar enough to be compatible within a society, however, we can still have a great deal of freedom if everyone assents to a minimalist framework of government. The issue is that not everyone wants to do that because it conflicts with their existing morals.

I've read about some forms of anarchic society as you mention, and neither will I agree to anarchism for the same reason you state.

Right, I might trust anarchism more if I started seeing less government bringing a lot more success in a rather magical manner in all affairs but there is naturally a conservative element in me that distrusts radical change without a powerful proof of success.

[vodz]

drewtheyellow hits the nail on the head, government and morals collide at some point though, and this is often guided by religion.
Morals are required for people to coexist, which people seem to have a penchant for. We have to try to think the same in order to each get what we want, i.e. we must all want the same things.

Well, that is certainly true. In fact, no government can exist that does not conflict with one being's morality and that is true whether or not we have religion or not given the many advocacy groups and ideologies. Some level of morality is necessary I suppose, or at least a strong framework of proper incentives, the former being more commonly found than the latter. We must have desires that are similar enough to be compatible within a society, however, we can still have a great deal of freedom if everyone assents to a minimalist framework of government. The issue is that not everyone wants to do that because it conflicts with their existing morals.

I've read about some forms of anarchic society as you mention, and neither will I agree to anarchism for the same reason you state.

Right, I might trust anarchism more if I started seeing less government bringing a lot more success in a rather magical manner in all affairs but there is naturally a conservative element in me that distrusts radical change without a powerful proof of success.

But are we talking about success of the collective or of the individual?

Of course, as you previously mentioned, we would require a Utopian society for anarchy to function. It is purely a hypothetical, "in the perfect world" theory. All people are skeptical of radical change, so even if we were on the right course, in the right mindset, it would take generations to implement.