honesty

[Gorak]

By many people, I hope you don't mean the entire world. And did those leaders last? I doubt it, they never do.

the leaders lead outta fear, and they do last, look at Stalin
but once they do fall, on a global scale, there is no one to pick up the pieces, and so another rises to power much the same way their predecessor did, and so your back to square 1 with the dictatorship

meanwhile, there is just more death and chaos and violence in the anarchy between dictators

and there would never be any global system anyways
no one would obtain enough power to control the planet, you would just have a bunch of territories each with their own dictator, and these dictators would probably not be friendly towards each other

eventually, it would come back to pretty much the way things are now, as these territories develop into nations and such
and so, global anarchy would do nothing but create generations of chaos, violence, hardship and oppression, and in the long run, changed absolutely nothing, other then reducing the human population

[Ungatt Trunn II]

By many people, I hope you don't mean the entire world. And did those leaders last? I doubt it, they never do.

the leaders lead outta fear, and they do last, look at Stalin
but once they do fall, on a global scale, there is no one to pick up the pieces, and so another rises to power much the same way their predecessor did, and so your back to square 1 with the dictatorship

meanwhile, there is just more death and chaos and violence in the anarchy between dictators

and there would never be any global system anyways
no one would obtain enough power to control the planet, you would just have a bunch of territories each with their own dictator, and these dictators would probably not be friendly towards each other

eventually, it would come back to pretty much the way things are now, as these territories develop into nations and such
and so, global anarchy would do nothing but create generations of chaos, violence, hardship and oppression, and in the long run, changed absolutely nothing, other then reducing the human population

I have run out of energy to debate any further, you win...

edit: but before I give up, how are you so sure that every leader is going to be a dictator? they won't. Besides, dictators<rest of world.... nuff' said.

[Gorak]

I know that nearly all the leaders who rise to power in global anarchy would be dictators, by looking at lessons of history, knowing human nature, and also, it would be the fastest, easiest way to rise to power in a situation like that, and so, such leaders will have already grasped power, and will be extending their power before the treehugger's would have a chance to organize a committee.
Territories that did not have a military backed dictatorship, would soon fall to territories that that did.

doesn't necessarily mean all the dictators would be bad and oppressive, but even if their intentions are good, they will still force their will upon their people, because they think it's best for them. Then the lust for power grows.

[Shadow]

I would make an awesome dictator

[Shade]

Not as awesome as Shade

[Shadow]

pfft you wish

nobody would take someone who referred to themselves in the third person as a leader, theyd take him as unstable and remove him

[Shade]

Bah, let em try

Shade may be unstable, but still he is capable of cunning

[Gorak]

not cunning enough for the real world
we're not a bunch of gullible children

[Firetooth]

now now
the pringles are our overlords, we are puny, we are in no poisition to make a dictator and revel with our puny ant-like armies...

[Ungatt Trunn II]

I know that nearly all the leaders who rise to power in global anarchy would be dictators, by looking at lessons of history, knowing human nature, and also, it would be the fastest, easiest way to rise to power in a situation like that, and so, such leaders will have already grasped power, and will be extending their power before the treehugger's would have a chance to organize a committee.
Territories that did not have a military backed dictatorship, would soon fall to territories that that did.

doesn't necessarily mean all the dictators would be bad and oppressive, but even if their intentions are good, they will still force their will upon their people, because they think it's best for them. Then the lust for power grows.

Look at history? Name one time the world was in global anarchy. And when people think of anarchy, they think of total chaos. But Anarchy means against all government. And you just stated the all the leaders would be dictators, and they wouldn't.


But, this marks my last attempt in this debate. 3 or 4 against me, none with me, I don't stand a chance.

[Gorak]

you never stood a chance because you were arguing a lost cause from the get go

[windhound]

Main problem is you're depending on an ideal world, which doesnt exist.  You're depending on people to do the -right- thing, which history has shown doesnt happen all that often...  and for varying values of "right." there are culture clashes.  IE, would you consider dying for your nation or religion the highest honor?  Many people have, and they believed they did the right thing.
Give yourself a few years, read the BBC or another decent, non-bias news source.  You'll lose some of that idealism. 

[Ungatt Trunn II]

Main problem is you're depending on an ideal world, which doesnt exist.  You're depending on people to do the -right- thing, which history has shown doesnt happen all that often...  and for varying values of "right." there are culture clashes.  IE, would you consider dying for your nation or religion the highest honor?  Many people have, and they believed they did the right thing.
Give yourself a few years, read the BBC or another decent, non-bias news source.  You'll lose some of that idealism. 

I never said anything about doing the -right- thing, but people would learn from mistakes, and others would try to lead, and fail.

[Firetooth]

pringle

[Firetooth]

bump