Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: that I have no faith in 'law and order' is not an automatic advocacy of 'anarchy' on my part.

You have no faith in law and order, but it must be working since we don't have anarchy. So what's your point if you actually have one?

Bill Wiltrack wrote:So what you're saying is you really don't believe in the philosophy that you alone expound here at the forum.

Please don't take my calling you a dipshit the wrong way.

"...it must be working since we don't have anarchy"

I'm inclined to think (at least some of) the folks affected by the Navy Shipyard shooting (for example) might disagree.


"So what's your point if you actually have one?"

Oh, I have a point but to get to it, this conversation must progress.

One sure way to move forward is for you to answer my question (which you still haven't done).

*shrug*

.




So what you're saying is you really don't believe in the philosophy that you alone expound here at the forum.




That these dreams are just that...dreams.


Dreams that will never be realized because you know, better than anyone else, these thoughts are just a waste of time.




.........................................................







That's OK. You can address this any way you wish...I'll wait right here.





.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:That's OK. You can address this any way you wish...I'll wait right here.

On second thought, please take my calling you a dipshit the wrong way.

henry quirk wrote:"...it must be working since we don't have anarchy"

I'm inclined to think (at least some of) the folks affected by the Navy Shipyard shooting (for example) might disagree.


"So what's your point if you actually have one?"

Oh, I have a point but to get to it, this conversation must progress.

One sure way to move forward is for you to answer my question (which you still haven't done).

*shrug*

Besides not having an understanding of anarchy, you also ask stupid questions about it. You're dumber than Wiltrack, but your saving grace is that you take up less space.

"Besides not having an understanding of anarchy..."

Chaos (unless, of course, you mean 'anarchism'...another topic completely).


"...you also ask stupid questions..."

First: screw you.

Second: if you can't answer my (simple/stupid) question, just fess up and stop with the posturing.


"You're dumber than Wiltrack, but take up less space."

HA!

Look, whatever your question is, can you just put it in simple terms, and I'll be more than happy to answer it. By the way, you certainly do come by your name honestly.

"simple terms"

All the *permutations I've offered in this thread are simple, but, for the sake of completeness, I ask one more time, in as simple a form as possible...


Do you, Bob, believe anarchy (chaos) is the natural and only result of having no overarching authority (law and order)?










*So, you believe in the absence of overarching 'authority' the default is always 'anarchy', yes?

*Without 'law and order' there can only be 'anarchy', yes?

*Do you believe without overarching 'authority' (law and order) the default (for a nation, a community, an individual) is always 'anarchy'?'

People will never be without a governing system since nature abhors a vacuum, and groups of people will automatically organize, and through force and intimidation exact their control over others. Of course, this has nothing to do with the subject of this thread concerning the judicial proceedings under the American Energy Party (AEP).

And you (again) fail to answer my question.

*shrug*

I thought I answered your question, but you seem to be fixated on some abstruse element that escapes me.