Ranking
Depends though, since if the rebels have a main purpose and are abiding by it, we COULD look at the purpose of their battle as the authority that they are following. In a way it means those rebels, in their own group, do not have an anarchy.
Proud Member of
[C3][Anime United]
When the Hurricanes hit Louisiana during Katarina, since everything was destroyed etc. and there were not enough officers, or just none in general survivor areas, there was total anarchy. There was a story of 3 15 year olds killing a 30 or so year old man to steal his resources.

TLR : Natural disaster aftermaths are the closest we've ever gotten to Anarchy.
T0ribush: I could not get into two worlds even if my life depended on it.
ಠ_ಠ ಥ_ಥ
This seems more like a discussion of say how powers shifted in Chinese Dynasties rather then anarchy. I guess theoretically there could be a brief period of anarchy between governing rulers, but why wouldn't the alleged leader of the rebels just take over the fallen throne?
[sigpic][/sigpic]
From a looong time ago:
[21:56]<Blam>ManBreakfast: Frunk wants to know why you banned him from IRC
[21:56]<ManBreakfast>oh, fuck
[21:56]=-=Mode #toribash -b Frunk!*Frankie'sip by ManBreakfast
Originally Posted by Cloneone1 View Post
@Yahamai Don't states have governments? There we go.

That was my point.
hurpderp
Shut the fuck up Todd.
so here is my take on anarchy:
total anarchy on a large scale would be near impossible to achieve
and unless implemented extremely slowly would result in total failure (think riots in the streets)

however on a small scale (20 people max) it has been shown to work very well
take the African "bushmen" they live with no laws, rules, punishment, government.
or any of that stuff. however they stay in tribes of about 20 and wander the desert
many have never seen or heard of "civilized" man.

the key to there success i believe is the small numbers and large separation of the tribes
the tribes are not governmental entities simply a collection of people who survive better working together then they would alone

the idea of anarchy by the modern anarchist (or gutter punk) is ridiculous
to truly pull it off you would need profound innocents
which is destroyed at as young an age is possible in our current society.
Free Pv2Caribou
I honestly think that you guys are right, usually I'd love to argue on this matter but you guys have pretty much nailed it.

dalir Moderated Message:
Non-contributive and useless, was given a warning to educate.
Last edited by dalir; Jan 2, 2011 at 03:15 PM.
Originally Posted by 2worlds View Post
When the Hurricanes hit Louisiana during Katarina, since everything was destroyed etc. and there were not enough officers, or just none in general survivor areas, there was total anarchy. There was a story of 3 15 year olds killing a 30 or so year old man to steal his resources.

TLR : Natural disaster aftermaths are the closest we've ever gotten to Anarchy.

To further improve on my point, I think total anarchy would be possible if a world-wide disaster were to be achieved, so if an asteroid struck; maybe a nuclear winter, just anything that would cause world wide destruction, basically wiping out all forms of contact and government, law, etc. That would eventually cause wide-spread Anarchy, until some sort of restoration of order.
T0ribush: I could not get into two worlds even if my life depended on it.
ಠ_ಠ ಥ_ಥ
well, this disscusion is totaly onesided, to make this a searious one u need to concider the goverment as NOT NEEDED AT ALL. the easiest way to do this would be to look at accient societies where there where no tax what so ever for example; The indians in america. there is some clear evidence that you could come and go from the society and there was no goverment what so ever if u did not want to be a part of the society and well, what was the need of a goverment in that case; simply power, Efficency within a group and wars. So, there is clear evidence that it could work, if we do have the power to survive on our own, in the modern world, id say its impossible to live with our "circumstances" but well, move to siberia and hunt down your own food, have your own water source and find some wood to build a house and keep it warm. and on the "law" front, i think we with our own mind and the words "threat others as you want to be threated" works fine, if you want to get murdered, do bad. if you wanna live, do good, cause someday/if someone will have the chance to have a gun and end your life if they find reason for it. so well, a network of 20mil people could work, but they would just have to live on their own, not as a society if anarcy would work on a HUGE scale, cause if you gorm a group, either you have to thing exactly the same at all time, or you do not have 100% anarchy as you sometimes must give in to the group as a whole.

//// i have no working spellingprogram in english as its not my main lang, so please oversee my spelling and/or gramar mistakes
Last edited by Smogard49; Jan 2, 2011 at 01:34 AM. Reason: Spelling =D
Now doing recoloring for people not in the clan as-well, PM for more info!
PROUD OWNER OF THORN'S GOOD ENOUGH WRITER AWARD!
Originally Posted by Smogard49 View Post
well, this disscusion is totaly onesided, to make this a searious one u need to concider the goverment as NOT NEEDED AT ALL. the easiest way to do this would be to look at accient societies where there where no tax what so ever for example; The indians in america. there is some clear evidence that you could come and go from the society and there was no goverment what so ever if u did not want to be a part of the society and well, what was the need of a goverment in that case; simply power, Efficency within a group and wars. So, there is clear evidence that it could work, if we do have the power to survive on our own, in the modern world, id say its impossible to live with our "circumstances" but well, move to siberia and hunt down your own food, have your own water source and find some wood to build a house and keep it warm. and on the "law" front, i think we with our own mind and the words "threat others as you want to be threated" works fine, if you want to get murdered, do bad. if you wanna live, do good, cause someday/if someone will have the chance to have a gun and end your life if they find reason for it. so well, a network of 20mil people could work, but they would just have to live on their own, not as a society if anarcy would work on a HUGE scale, cause if you gorm a group, either you have to thing exactly the same at all time, or you do not have 100% anarchy as you sometimes must give in to the group as a whole.

//// i have no working spellingprogram in english as its not my main lang, so please oversee my spelling and/or gramar mistakes

You do realize that even the tribes in africa/america/etc. Still have a tribe LEADER?
T0ribush: I could not get into two worlds even if my life depended on it.
ಠ_ಠ ಥ_ಥ
Total anarchy will exist when oil runs out, and some say that peak oil will happen in the next 5-20 years, and when that happens riots will go down for sure.
[Evil][OLDA][wl][pro pot]