h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Exactly right- having participated in debates at school the scene was already set in that we had only so much time in which to present the arguement and the job of the second speaker was to rebut the arguements of the opposition, that of the third to continue the rebuttal and to wind up effectively with lasting impressions left in the mind of the listeners and hence " win ". Our parlimentary process effectively, is suppose to follow these lines but if you [can stand ]listening to Parliment you find that the rebuttal amounts to personal attack and makes my two sons fighting sound incredibly mature!
So to effect lasting change in the way that we manage such things, we need to go back to the core and rethink through what we are teaching our children about the process of debate, and the concept of 'winning'....instead moving into a sphere of learning to listen with empathy,consider the other's view, be happy to change one's own mind in the course of the discourse,and either reach an acceptable consensus or walk away from the issue til one can be reached.
However to reach a state of general goodwill amoung the population seems to imply that there is a common thread or consensus.Some political leaders become so, not because they desire followers as much as followers find it easier to unify behind a common thread or theme embodied in a person such as Ghandi or Martin Luther King.
Anarchists "don't follow worth beans" but can anarchists cooperate to achieve a common aim? One definition of an organisation is a group of people working to achieve a common goal.
If anarchists can cooperate are they not then an organisation with a common goal of anarchy?

Of course anarchists can cooperate. I've been at anarchist gatherings of hundreds of people where child care, food service, and other essential functions were smoothly organized and carried out. Of course, it's just a myth that anarchists are all alike. Some believe that in a state of anarchy, people would choose to cooperate more often than they would choose to compete -- these are by and large the anarcho-communists. Others believe people would mostly choose to compete -- these are the anarcho-capitalists. Of course most people have a mix of views.

Whether you view anarchy as something that could work here and now, or as an idea to be preserved for the future, may depend largely on how you were brought up to think of people. Much of western political thought traces back, through Locke, to Hobbes, and his conception that people in a state of nature just aren't nice. If you believe this, you'll tend to dismiss anarchy as an impossible dream.

Anarchy always has worked in smaller groups , of course then it's usually called consensus. Now would the group agree that they are practicing anarchy ? I'd guess probably not , as the term is far too loaded with bomb throwing propaganda .
As far as good will goes , as long as the greater group can agree to disagree in a constructive manner and work at arriving on either a common ground or to allow the opposing groups or individuals to hold thier own opinions and or practices , then there is good will.
On the view that people aren't nice , if you start with that as a premiss then taken to it's logical limits you'd have to conclude that people can't be allowed power . This sounds like an argument for anarchy to me unless of course you can find someone who isn't people. An anecdotal story ; Some years back I was on a trip to Mexico with a group. When we stopped at a trailer park in Arizona one gentelman stated " Don't go to Mexico , the men will be raped and worse will happen to the women " , this was stated out of apparent real concern. Later in a trailer park about 200 miles into Mexico we were told " Mexico is pretty nice in the trailer parks but don't go outside of them " this from another concerned American tourist . A month later when I was hitch hiking in Chiapas state ( southern Mexico ) a Mexican friend told me " Be careful when you get to the US , it's a dangerous country" .
I think most people know that they are ok and thier neighbours and friends are ok , so since everyone has heard that bad things happen it must be that "those people over there" are bloodthirsty cutthroats.

It is certainly easier to promote 'stranger danger' than to admit to the negative elements within ourselves and our communities.Yet they do most certainly exist.Prehaps they seem more 'manageable' because you grow up with the rules and the clues about what to expect or to avoid.Two young people went missing in the Sounds area - a local holiday spot - the theories ran rife about them being abducted by some nasty overseas boat owner - there are many yachts from all over the world that flock here in the summer. Just recently a local man was convicted of their murders.Some people I know who have holidayed there cannot believe it because it is just 'too close to home ' and 'things like that don't happen here '.Child abuse, neglect, home invasion, rape, domestic violence. They most certianly do happen - maybe the scale is less in number but they it seems to be increasing.Prehaps the nicest thing to watch during the New Year celebrations was the large number of families out together and the general good will that seemed to exist - few arrests and much less excess.Anarchy is indeed a word with very negative connotations.But in my own small way I'm starting with the power of one and those I can influence, namely me first,then all I come into contact with.

My first rule of social interaction is that I am responsible for my own actions and for those of no other. In my own actions I should attempt to understand those around me , so that my actions will be appropriate , but I also want the same courtesy applied in return.
Yes violence occures , but living in fear and basing your life on total avoidance of any risk means the violent get free rein to do as much dammage as they want. My logic on this is based on a few observations. Areas deserted by a large majority of people for fear of violence attrack the very activities and personalities who are violent. A pub I used to frequent had a number of " druggies " as patrons along with students , older intellectuals and a number of gays , there was almost never a fight in the place , and many an enjoyable evening was spent chatting with the largely pacifist clientel. The management decided to do something about the disreptuable elements and hired a bouncer who liked to fight , after he chased most of the women out of the place ( his opinion was if they were there they must be whores , and he let them know that ) , and then cracked a few ribs ejecting people , the majority of the old regulars left. The new crowd loved to fight , end result ... bar closed down after a few massive brawls.
I would rather live as if violence is an unlikely event , and enjoy my life , then hide in fear. Even if I come to a violent end , I will have had a life up to that point.

Wow, you sound pretty smart! Can you tell me why all these people are logged in and not saying anything?

Hi cloughie, being a former participant this came up on my page again...forums are like any conversation worldwide....the words flow and various people put their 2c in, then for whatever reason they drift off to start new debates,but the difference here is that the conversation is recorded.
It can be quite freaky to find weeks later the ever expanding list of half finished debates that float around the place.Some to be picked up when something is added or some to be considered already rounded off and time to move to a new topic.
Hope that helps!

And sometimes things lay dormant for months then spring back to active life. ( Hi Keeza ) H2G2 isn't quit an IRC chat , it's more like an open email system , few of the conversations are in real time , mostly they spread across space and time in thier own evolving way. A combination of Speakers Corner , and Dr Who .