Anarchist vs nationalist.

[King TonGoll]

who has the stronger views?
and when i say anarchist, i don't mean the term most people have placed upon people who blow things up and run around killing people, no i mean what it actually means and thats the belief in no government.

a nationalist as some one who believes in strong government and loves the idea of a united nation under it.

lets just play with the ideas here, anarchy has hardly ever been practiced, but i can see it working for a few reason's

lets say that this is the ultimate majority rules. everyone goes insane, then everyone goes insane, but the more likely to happen would be about 40-30 percent go insane, and in order to cope with the insanity of the insane, they get weapons and that frieghtens the insane from being insane.

if that made any sense. anyways, go at it!

 

[Ninva]

Have you seen the African counties that do not have a government? Hundreds lay dying without food, water, or medical treatment. Gangs and clans fight in the streets. People die needlessly.

 

[Samael88]

If what you wrote about those two is exactly what you think they are then you are a bit of target, not entirely, but a little bit.

The short story of both is:
Nationalism: A belief where one praises ones own country, it's people, the culture heritage, the history, and kind of protects the gouvernments interests.

Anarchy: A belief which has it's center policy as such "No government, thus no rules or laws".

That is why anarchistic society is most commonly suggested to be chaotic.

And that is why nationalism is often misstaken for racism, atleast in Sweden


Conclusion:
I would say that nationalism is the strongest, since I believe that a united people is the cornerstone of every succesfull country:thup:
And also: "A nation can never be stronger than it's leader"

Anarchy is the weakest beacuse it actually is almost the exact opposite:thdown:
"No leader to unite the people, no strenght"

 

[Darthfett]

Both are very extreme views, and so neither is very strong.

These are both similar to communism in that they only work in concept, not in real life. There's always someone going to be power hungry. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Anarchy is complete chaos at its purest form. No laws, no punishment, only human reactions. It would make Darwin's law (strongest will survive) pretty much the rule of power, as people would find strength in numbers.

Although nationalism is very different from Anarchy in the way it works, it is not the other end of the spectrum. Nationalism doesn't state that the government has absolute control.

I would say nationalism is the stronger view.

 

[uberfoop]

Nationalism is an ideology, anarchy describes the 'form of government' in which there is no government.

The two ideas can either exist independantly or coexist because they describe things in totally different fields. It would be completely possible to have a nationalist anarchist nation, if that's how the culture in that area rolls (Well, sort of. Nationalism emphasizes the national 'community', so it would be pretty messy.).

This debate is about as useful as asking "what's better, this Ipod from Best Buy or the front left tire on that car over there?"


This having been said, nationalism is way more awesome than anarchy. Nationalist governments have been known to work sometimes. Anarchy is that garbage you get in places like Somalia where it winds up not being anarchist anyway because a bunch of people take over local regions, and everyone winds up unhappy.

 

[King TonGoll]

true, theres been many nationalist nations that have done great things, and anarchy in a chaotic state witch is all that seems to occur is bad, even if the theory sounds nice to some.

i think this debate has been closed, time for it to die. unless some one has something important to say or a strong agrument. if not lets close this thing up.

Nationalism 1
anarchy 0

 

[Miz]

Anarchy doesn't work in society. "Lord of the Flies" is a good example of that. True, it sounds good, having all the rights you want. Well, until someone has the right to kill another man, or steal from someone and what are you going to do? Its not like anyone is going to help you, there are no police to enforce laws, there is no government to make laws.

Anarchy is the Natural Order of things, The Strong Devour the Weak...

While it sounds like a wonderful plan, it only takes one bad apple, one person not to respect another person's rights, to ruin the deal.
Having a government and being united is a much better system, sure you can't do whatever you want, but most of your rights are protected from others.

 

[Seb!]

Great example of a failed nationalist government: Nazi Germany.

 

[King TonGoll]

yes but the main arguement for anarchy's sake against a man killing another man is that the man who killed first will probably be killed.

i find that in a anarchist world it could verry well be an eye for an eye.

 

[uberfoop]

Except that that isn't necessarily the case. The man who strikes first can subdue the other guy and pretty much everyone and take over if no established order is around to stop him. Authority centralizes where there's a vacuum of political power.

Great example of a failed nationalist government: Nazi Germany.

That was some fast application of Godwin's Law xD

 

[Varine]

and when i say anarchist, i don't mean the term most people have placed upon people who blow things up and run around killing people, no i mean what it actually means and thats the belief in no government.

No government = no iron guidelines = self-made laws = dystopia. That simple forumula of events is what comes from anarchism, and there is a close simile rather than a stereotype.

 

[Faust]

Nationalism is stronger. As it gives a target to love and praise and achieve.
Anarchism is for punks and hippies.

However, both fail.

Government is of course necessary, but especially in the time coming, loving your own country blindly is retarded.
I'm from Hungary, there is a decently strong nationalist movement here.
Makes my stomach ache.
I'm not Hungarian...
At the least, I'm a European.
At the most, I'm a human. And so are you.

 

[Samael88]

Great example of a failed nationalist government: Nazi Germany.

What makes you think that the nazis failed?
I think that Adolf actually did pretty well on this matter, he did afterall take the leadership of a nation and conquer half of europe. And that was with nationalism.

 

[Faust]

And then he was crushed. Woo-hoo.
Basically, Germans took only what the Europeans let them to take (don't take this sentence absolutely literally).

 

[King TonGoll]

And then he was crushed. Woo-hoo.
Basically, Germans took only what the Europeans let them to take (don't take this sentence absolutely literally).

i believe that it wasn't the nationalism really that destroyed nazi germany though, it was the lack of supplys, the war, and the rest of the world.

the nationalism made its people support the war with everything they had....

not siding with the nazis AT ALL though.

 

[Faust]

Nationalism didn't crush them directly.
Nationalism actually boosts a country's power, but damages the connections with other countries.
You see, with unity they were strong, but much more people were outside of that unity (the allied forces), who too sought unity, however not by nationalism, but because of mutual interests.

And in the EU, the borders are becoming meaningless, anyone can come and go as they please, work, move, visit...
Everyone should go where they would feel good, because of the landscape and climate.
These two things are still unique, and no country can have all (well, Spain comes pretty close ).
For example, I love rain and I love nature, I prefer the cool weather but not too cold.
British Isles' north.

 

[Samael88]

Nationalism didn't crush them directly.
Nationalism actually boosts a country's power, but damages the connections with other countries.
You see, with unity they were strong, but much more people were outside of that unity (the allied forces), who too sought unity, however not by nationalism, but because of mutual interests.

If two people are both nationalists, then I would pretty much asume that they had mutual interests
No matter what, Adolf made good use of nationalism and that's a fact.
I don't mean good as in good and evil tho, beacuse I think that he was a pretty evil man

I love rain and I love nature.

Add sunshine to it and you would love sweden during the summerHere
Here it rains when the sun is shining and we got a beautiful nature

 

[Faust]

Was considered and dropped. Winters too cold.
For me, Rain > Snow
And I just fucking love Scotland.


If we were to discuss historical world leaders (you might say monsters), Stalin pwns Hitler

 

[Samael88]

If we were to discuss historical world leaders (you might say monsters), Stalin pwns Hitler

If we where going to be like that, then you should have seen my old boss
She would pwn everyone in that category

 

[Zakyath]

Anarchy is belief in that man is good, and nationalism is belief in that everyone as you are superior the rest of the world. Personally, I don't like any of them.

Anyways, in anarchy, it would probably be survival of the strongest. Nationalism is the same. But there are laws to enforce their power. And they aren't really stronger. They have just gotten might, in some way. Of course, a nationalism might work fine, if everyone is treated right, etc. etc. But so is anarchy. I would say both of those are very weak, and I wouldn't want to live in any of them. It all depends on the circumstances, but I do believe that a nationalistic society would be easier to live in most of the times.