Well if you govern technically your a states man

I consider myself an anarchist. Not a "let's watch the world burn" stereotype, but a "let's work together and live in happiness and peace" kind of way, you feel?

I feel you, but I believe some sort of Government or political structure needs to be in place so society does not fall on itself

Globula said
I consider myself an anarchist. Not a "let's watch the world burn" stereotype, but a "let's work together and live in happiness and peace" kind of way, you feel?

You can believe this if you want, of course. But that's a very unrealistic way to look at things.

Just sayin'.

Pepperm1nts said
You can believe this if you want, of course. But that's a very unrealistic way to look at things.Just sayin'.

I actually know of many anarchists. It's actually a legit and fairly sound political idea. I think most of its short-comings stem from the fact that a stateless society wouldn't last very long surrounded by countries with actual organized militaries. From my understanding anarchism advocates for militia type things rather than an actual military.

Anarchy is a tricky thing: it has potential, and if it were achieved, we could live in a nearly perfect world. However, for anarchy to work, people would have to shed their pride and their greed. We'd have to build a society that isn't quite a society- no rules, but morals. You feel me? I know how naive it sounds, but if we had perfect anarchy, we would have a oneness that can't be achieved through traditional politics.

In other words, it's impossible.

How is 'oneness' and a lack of morality a good thing?

Jannah said
I actually know of many anarchists. It's actually a legit and fairly sound political idea. I think most of its short-comings stem from the fact that a stateless society wouldn't last very long surrounded by countries with actual organized militaries. From my understanding anarchism advocates for militia type things rather than an actual military.

Actually, there are a few countries without militaries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces

Besides that, suppose if Canada disbanded its military as superfluous, would America just invade without reason? Is Russia going to hop the Arctic Circle to invade and take over Canada just cause it's defenseless?

The idea of countries simply launching campaigns to conquer other lands these days, without any reason, is kind of ridiculous.

Ahem... *points to Ukraine*

Vortex said
Ahem... *points to Ukraine*

Crimea is heavily ethnic Russian, seeing as it was given to Ukraine in the early 1950s by Khrushchev when the USSR was having its hay day. While I don't exactly agree with Russia invading another nation's sovereign territory and setting up a speedy and probably fixed referendum, their justifications aren't entirely unfounded. When Russia started sending troops into Crimea, Ukraine was still in a huge upheaval with really violent protests, so saying they were protecting ethnic Russians kind of makes sense (I'm almost certain this isn't why they did it, but as far as political posturing goes, it can at least be argued, unlike say North Korea accusing South Korea is provoking them into taking violent action for every little thing) and it was territory that was Russian up until the Soviets handed it over. I'm sure a lot of Russians probably weren't and aren't happy about that.

It would be kind of similar if Italy gave Sicily to Spain 60 years ago (let's just assume the European Union was structured in a similar manner to the USSR and the Eastern Bloc for a moment and existed, for that matter) and Italy moved troops to reclaim it if the ethnic Basque population started a widespread violent protests in Spain. Does that help put it into perspective? I'm not saying I agree with what Russia's doing and I dislike their government something fierce, but the point I'm making is that pulling the Ukraine card in Goldy's hypothesized Russian invasion of Canada is rather unwarranted for the example given. It's like comparing apples and depleted uranium rods.

Russia annexed ukraine, so it's too late tore claim it. If they wanted to keep it they should have just kept it

@Dervish: Nope.

Still think Russia was wrong in invading. Still think the referendum was illegal.

Crimea was part of Ukraine. It doesn't matter if it's only been a few decades, or if half of its citizens were ethnic Russians. Crimea was, at that point in time, rightly Ukrainian.

Vortex said
Russia annexed ukraine, so it's too late tore claim it. If they wanted to keep it they should have just kept it

...You do realize it wasn't all of Ukraine, right? Just that little peninsula at the bottom?

Pepperm1nts said
@Dervish: Nope.Still think Russia was wrong in invading. Still think the referendum was illegal.Crimea was part of Ukraine. It doesn't matter if it's only been a few decades, of if half of its citizens were ethnic Russians. Crimea was, at that point in time, rightly Ukrainian.

Dervish said
Crimea is heavily ethnic Russian, seeing as it was given to Ukraine in the early 1950s by Khrushchev when the USSR was having its hay day. While I don't exactly agree with Russia invading another nation's sovereign territory and setting up a speedy and probably fixed referendum
...
I'm not saying I agree with what Russia's doing and I dislike their government something fierce

Juuuuust in case you missed it, 'cause you seem to think I don't recognize that Russia's invading another country and claiming a portion of its sovereign territory as its own.

No, I saw that. I'm telling you what I think.

But you're implying - or at least it seems like - that their actions were loosely justified because of the Russian ethnic majority and Crimea's short history as part of Ukraine. That logic is flawed, to say the least.

I don't think you're in support of their actions though. It just seemed like you were trying to defend their actions a bit there.

Pepperm1nts said
No, I saw that. I'm telling you what I think. But you're implying - or at least it seems like - that their actions were loosely justified because of the Russian ethnic majority and Crimea's short history as part of Ukraine. That logic is flawed, to say the least.I don't think you're in support of their actions though. It just seemed like you were trying to defend their actions a bit there.

I probably phrased it poorly. I know they're violating international law and I believe they need to be held accountable for their actions, I'm just saying I can recognize their justifications, even though I disagree with them. I certainly would never try to defend any nation claiming territory belonging to another.

And yes I know it was just Crimea not the whole of ukraine, apologies

I understand how ridiculous it may sound, and I don't know how to explain it exactly, but I prefer to avoid pessimism and the insistence that we can't overcome mentality and blocks instilled by our evolution. Not an argument, just putting it out there, no provocation intended.

No provocation taken. It's always good to dream and work towards a better world, so no one can fault you for wanting that.