Quote from: SgtSpike on October 09, 2011, 06:26:15 AM

Quote from: joepie91 on October 09, 2011, 01:50:07 AM

Quote from: Hawker on October 08, 2011, 10:43:57 PM

Quote from: joepie91 on October 08, 2011, 06:27:35 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 08, 2011, 06:26:40 PM

Quote from: joepie91 on October 08, 2011, 06:22:54 PM

Quote from: onesalt on October 01, 2011, 12:44:58 AM

DEMOCRACY IS BAD BUT I REFUSE TO OFFER UP AN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM WHICH WOULD BE FAIRER - Every single poster on this forum, to be perfectly honest

Welcome to anarchy.

EDIT: In case you didn't get it, that's your alternative system right there.

Anarchy is great for the guys who start off rich enough to own the police and courts or for guys who can get military assistance from foreign governments. But after a while, it would become a dictatorship as there can only be one guy who wins.

What part of 'no enforced government' do you not understand?

What part of "rich guys with private armies are a bad idea" do you not understand?

What would a 'private army' do exactly? They cannot exercise force (after all, no enforced government), so what exactly would the purpose of said army be?

Why couldn't they exercise force?

Because that is the whole point of anarchism. No initiation of force.

Quote from: Hawker on October 09, 2011, 01:07:54 PM

Quote from: joepie91 on October 09, 2011, 01:50:07 AM

Quote from: Hawker on October 08, 2011, 10:43:57 PM

Quote from: joepie91 on October 08, 2011, 06:27:35 PM

Quote from: Hawker on October 08, 2011, 06:26:40 PM

Quote from: joepie91 on October 08, 2011, 06:22:54 PM

Quote from: onesalt on October 01, 2011, 12:44:58 AM

DEMOCRACY IS BAD BUT I REFUSE TO OFFER UP AN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM WHICH WOULD BE FAIRER - Every single poster on this forum, to be perfectly honest

Welcome to anarchy.

EDIT: In case you didn't get it, that's your alternative system right there.

Anarchy is great for the guys who start off rich enough to own the police and courts or for guys who can get military assistance from foreign governments. But after a while, it would become a dictatorship as there can only be one guy who wins.

What part of 'no enforced government' do you not understand?

What part of "rich guys with private armies are a bad idea" do you not understand?

What would a 'private army' do exactly? They cannot exercise force (after all, no enforced government), so what exactly would the purpose of said army be?

If someone has the power to kill you, its pointless to say that they cannot exercise force. They can do as they please and you'd best hope they stop at taking your possessions.

And what is the difference with how that works now? You can be killed and robbed anyway, private army or no private army. I fail to see how your criticism has anything to do with anarchism at all.