Quote Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank
we'll just have to agree to disagree then. personally, I don't see society as a whole just policing itself and everyone doing the right thing without being forced to. Looking out for yourself all the time just ruins society, since no one cares about anyone else. If you want to arm everyone and say "Go nuts", you're in for a VERY rude awakening.

And no, I don't call police legal vengeance. There's a difference between the words Justice and Vengeance for a reason. Vengeance is for personal satisfaction, to settle a score, justice is to see that those who pray on the innocent are punished. Eliminate the police, and I'll fuckin' kill you, because who's to stop me? You? Indeed, perhaps the police wouldn't have a chance to STOP me, but they have a MUCH better chance of catching me than your family and friends do. Also, god forbid we have a set of people who seek out thieves and crooks. I don't know about you, but if I get robbed at gun point by some psycho, I don't think I wanna try and get my shit back from them. Why you ask? Because I'll get fucking SHOT, and that bastard will get away with it without a team of dedicated, well equipped and well armed people to stop them. I guess my desire to NOT murder and steal makes me ill-equipped for anarchy.

People are more than capable of getting revenge without police, and that's why its wrong. If you're seeking revenge instead of justice, if you want personal satisfaction instead of benefiting your society, you need to step back and analyze your life.
I agree to a point, so i will explain.

First off, a society without government is the exact opposite of full blown socialism. In the instances of both extremes, they both ignore simple aspects of human nature such as greed, desiring, jealousy, and laziness. The anarchist ignores the fact that people are greedy and jealous, just as the socialist ignores that people are desiring and lazy. The simple act of ignoring these facts about humans beings as a whole discredits any opinion of how an authoritarian/anarchist society would be able to exist.

Any sane and prosperous society needs some sort of police force to protect the rights of a states citizens. Failure to do so opens the doors for a "mafia" style entity that will eventually gain power through organization, which undermines the whole concept of a stateless society.

Comparatively, a complete scope of state power will pave the way for sub-societies to form, or a rebel like entity to brood under the oppressions of an all powerful central authority. Authorities and supporters of a such society will view this person/group as a terrorist, much like the antagonist V from V for Vendetta.

Now, on a smaller scale as previously mentioned, communities based on such ideals can prosper. But, its only under the protection of the state, even if that state implores the majority of its powers to its citizens, that would allow for this. Otherwise, neither extreme is self sustainable, as both would require an aspect of the other to grow (not chronic).
GoldenBoy812 Reviewed by GoldenBoy812 on . Why is socialism so bad? Hello Everyone! I have been following the presidential race and the arguments in these forums for the past few weeks. One of the new issues is SOCIALISM. I lived in the United States for 17 years, but moved back to my home country of Finland a couple years ago. Finland is a Socialist Democracy. We have free health care, free education through your bachelor's degree (when you turn 18, the gov. also pays for 80% of your rent and grocery money(240â?¬/month), and allows you to take out Rating: 5