Anarchy is better than communism

thats ok :) i'm just going to rebut, dont have enough time for more arguments..... Maybe i should have rephrased my first statement to read the following 'Government is necessary for ultimate co-operation'. It is true that cooperation does emerge without law, as the opposition has stated, people could (maybe) grasp certain basic principles of the law of nature. But their applications and precise detail are always going to be controversial. People can maybe agree on a few general things, but overall they will be arguing about the various points of detail, and even some of the major points. I am not one to suggest taking the risk of a society without Government, would any of the readers? unless they felt in the rebellious mood? The opposition stated the following... 'Another point I feel is necessary to make here is that a government isn't required for there to be "laws"' This is simply a false statement. Without a government you don't have enough sufficiently unified power to enforce. It is simply a few individuals enforcing things on their own. And they will be weak, a Government is strong. They will not be organised either, a Government will be. Quote: " If there are rules in a society without a government it doesn't mean they won't be upheld" People may be able to make laws for themselves, but it is another issue enforcing these laws. Anarchism means no societal structure, because there is such an over-hanging doubt that these newly created laws (which people supposedly agree on) will not be enforced, there will never be enough unified power, power which comes from a Government. Furthermore, people can"t be trusted to be judges in their own case. If two people have a disagreement, and one of them says, "Well, I know what the law of nature is and I"m going to enforce it on you," well, people tend to be biased, and they"re going to find most plausible the interpretation of the law of nature that favors their own case. You can"t trust people to be judges in their own case; therefore, they should be morally required to submit their disputes to an arbitrator. Quote: "You'd never guess what I found, a list on UN's (United Nations) website of 16 countries which are non-self-governing" Really? What does NON-SELF-GOVERNING mean? it means countries that are COLONISED. Not meaning 'they don't have their own government'. Did you really believe that countries such as New Caledonia and Bermuda had no forms of government? Here is the list for readers discretion (and your discretion). http://www.un.org... So, we have no established that the opposition has made a false claim. Trying to dress up their argument perhaps. The truth is their are no countries who are anarchists, or who use anarchism. Bermuda, does in fact have a government (much to the oppositions disbelief). There are certain groups of people in society who believe in anarchism, radicalists who simply want to oppose the state. They do not appreciate the strength of Government, the strength of law, and the detrimental impact on their race if they choose to have no government. "Just to clarify against the next major point made: We don't need government to live. We need water, air, and food to live." The second sentence here does not justify the first? where is the argument going? just because we need water does not mean we do not need some form of societal structure? but lets try it, lets make Australia an anarchist country, and give them food and water, i hope for my sake we do not descend into civil war. Individuality! Quote: "Don't get me wrong here, there's definitely individuality required in choosing who you marry or what career you have, but you can't tell the difference between two people based just on that. Individuality is based on much more than two simple decisions. It's based on a lot of things, like what music you like, what shows you watch or books you read, what religion you are, etc. Without those things we're all pretty much the same person." Yes individuality is based on many things, thank-you for continuing my list. I WAS NOT implying that individuality is purely based on those two things, i was simply arguing that you can be an individual and live in a communist society, and you have helped me to prove my point. Because in a Communist society you can chose what music you like, and what shows to watch, you can be an individual. And although this is irrelevant there are many things which distinguish people from one another not purely the factors listed by the opposition (quote: without those things we're all pretty much the same person). Communism is not a form of Government whereby all of your individual characteristics are completely robbed of you, as the opposition has tried to argue. And no i would not like to live in a country without any law, can you actually imagine that? Are you disillusioned due to your ideals? People can get along with each other sure, but there are some crazy people who live in this world: murderers, child molesters, rapists, pedophiles. These people act on INCENTIVE. How many people do you think refuse to steal from a shop, because they know they will be get a fine, or a sentence? How many people take their foot of the accelerator on the highway, because they don't want to get at ticket? There people are stopped from committing these crimes thanks to the Government, going to prison is a strong enough deterrent to stop people from committing these crimes. They make laws, and they enforce them! Something which an anarchist society can never achieve, as i have showed above! Quote: There's no real evidence that every single society which takes on anarchy is going to be chaotic. I'm not saying anarchy has a good history by any means, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible for there to be anarchy without chaos. So, anarchy doesn't have a good history? Yes that's right! Every country who have become anarchists, have somehow evolved back into some form of Government. It is a self-perpetuating cycle! We need Government to survive, like water, and like food (healthy food you should have added). QUOTE: Referencing the only book I know which has history from "the beginning of time", The Bible, I would like to point out that in the beginning Adam and Eve had no government. They didn't kill each other did they? Firstly, that was not the 'beginning of time', but anyway. TWO PEOPLE can maybe survive being anarchists because they might only have one or two disagreements. 314 million people live in the United States................ QUOTE: It's about the simple fact that people don't need someone telling them what they can and can't do every single second of every day just to live. Thats is NOT THE ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT IN ESSENCE. This is complete nonsense, complete hyperbole. Anyone with sense would realise this is deceiving. Read above for further explanation opposition^ I have referenced the need for Government in this debate extensively. Because, from my position, that is the essence of this debate. Communism is a form of Government. ANARCHISM IS NOT. Therefore i am arguing the need for government. Is that simple enough for the opposition to understand? In this debate (i wouldn't really call it that) the opposition has stressed the need for complete freedom.Complete freedom is not possible. I have stressed this throughout the debate. The opposition is living in an imaginary world where apparently everyone can walk around the streets without law and without people who enforce the law. How Great. Anarchism is chaos, because we need Government to sustain ourselves. There is no question of individualism, no question of complete freedom, there are two simple equations. Communism = Government = Tolerable Anarchism = Chaos thanks