This is going to sound cliché as well, but holy beesus do I hate all of you. But mostly only because you're so intolerant.

EDIT:
History, yes but not the future. That was mostly the point I was trying to make. As fruitless (in lack of a better word) of an argument as it is, you can't know about the future.

Hell, there's a ton about history we don't know either.

This forum is soooo disappointingYou guys are all right.http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/t...ticons/shy.gif

It's ironic, really. The only way anarchy can be maintained is artificially, through the actions of a higher authority, which prevents the accumulation of power and support...

Though it'd be an interesting experiment. Can society be influenced to resent authority independently?

Hate to break it to you, Oster, but looking at history provides a means for guessing what we can expect in the future. Humanity builds on its own history. Nothing can become without first considering what came before. Light bulbs were the result of hundreds of failed experiments to produce an electric lamp to replace oil lamps and candles. Oil lamps and candles stemmed from torches. Torches stemmed from the first cave man to ever build a fire.

To extend that to humanity, we have an unchanging history of greed, power lust, and feelings of superiority to everything that's not part of our in-group, which leads to war, grasping for power, and oppression. Unless we do a 180 on a global level, by which I mean no human alive can have an ounce of ambition, desire, or group identity, a Utopian anarchy will never happen.

I'm not intolerent, I just hate all you gits equally!

On the future part you are partially right but that's also assuming humanity learns from it mistakes, which doesn't seem to be true most of the time :/

I have to apologize for being an asshole in my earlier posts today in this thread. My blood sugar was low due to the fact that I had not eaten all day, I had 5 hours of sleep last night, I had a presentation and a test today, and that one incident just really set me off.

I'm not going to say "abolish religion" per se, but I just get really annoyed when people who are overzealous Christians go around yelling "OMG I HAET TEH GAYZ GUYZ FUK GRR".


I feel like an asshole.

I must know, where is that gif from? I saw it earlier and was like, I don't know if he's mocking me or not, but it really doesn't matter because that gif is awesome.

No need to apologize. No food or sleep on an exam day would make most anyone go a little batty.

I remember when I was at 154 posts. Oh what it was to be young...

Just sayin'...do we really care? If you're an asshole to someone, then you're an asshole. It doesn't really lend itself to caveats. It's like playing a hockey game, having a bad game and then saying "Well I was playing on a sprained ankle." You still had a bad game, albeit for a good reason, but it still happened. The best solution would be to go on to do better later in some twisted internet forum redemption quest. But in the counter-argument, I'm kind of going up to the short guy and saying "Why can't you reach the top shelf?"

I'm off track. Back to anarchy:

Really at this point we're just rehashing the Liberal vs Realist idea. The realist view being that the world is anarchy and the state is only permitted to exist because of fear, and the Liberal view from Locke and stating that the state nature occurs in nature. We're all logical and self-interested and because of it will realize that through cooperation everyone can have a jet-car, a hot trophy wife, and an exotic rich-mahogany liquor cabinet. Kind of like a socio-political free market. And we saw how THAT one turned out...

Well, full blown, original minded, large scale Anarchy is not really self sustainable. Because we're not equal. Some of us are indeed better than others. Both Physically and mentally, so, as the mass becomes larger, it's only natural for the "weaker" ( i use the term loosely, just to illustrate) to gravitate towards those they found to be "stronger" .

There you stabilish a moral chain of command, which then should generate positive and negative feedback and relationships, which would then define a chain of trust. Thus, creating a "Line" of command that can define itself in the present and for the future.

At that point, you don't have Anarchy at all, you have a fragmented society made of "Hubs" of power that will, naturally, at some point collide and clash or ally or disband to another territory.

And at THAT point you already have another form of Goverment stabilished. Raging from pure Tyrany right up to full blown democracy. It just depends of the social enviroment and they people present at the time of conception.