I had another thread about anarchy a little while back and it seemed that about 90% of opposers did not understand the political philospohy of anarchy at all. This is more for those who particapated in that thread. Has your mind been changed at all? And for those of you who are new to the concept here it is in a very very small nutshell. Anarchist are not for the complete abolishment of the government. They are for the cause of minamizing the amount of influence a formal government has on the indivisual. We are for the abloshiment of the current system that allows laws to be passed by a very few select amount of people that effect an entire nation of people, as well as a system in which The Supream Court would no longer excist because it is simply too much power for so few people. People would have ultimate freedom, do what you want, how you want, when you want, as long as it does not physicaly, econamicaly ect. effect another human being. There would be no social classes (low, middle, high class is an example in refrence to money) and censorship in art or free speech does not exist. Companies would have no direct tie to the government, and would be free to trade how they wish. (Anarcho-Capatalism) Theres MANY other factors but thats some of the key ones **please excuse spelling**
Oh and just to make this clear, the political meaning of anarchy does not mean total chaos or youre free to kill, steal, ect.
you may be right that thats all that you want....at first see you are trying to minamize influentaul power and in the process becoming everything your tyring to get rid of so you are more of a threat than the government is in reality
you are becoming every thing you are going up agianst and therefore you are nothing but a lost cause and in the end you start to become the influence then another anrchy starts up and it's agianst you then what do you do?
Anarchy says nothing about the desagration of morals or the basic rights of a human being. Its to enforce freedom. To allow a human to be independent of any government
no, it effects more than one because in order for there to be and anarchy more than only one person must decidse that they don't like the way things are = ]
I am not. Theres plenty of anarchist out there right now. I think youre forgeting that there is no leaders of anarchy
yes and in the end you become a power that enstills a force that will eventualy result in nothing but another anarchy
ok, i will start. TTTTTTTTTTThhhhhhhhhhhhUUUUUUUUUUUUJJJJJJJJJJJJJKKKKKKKKff,mdkddmcsmvkmsmd s k wer erwprepo oig o oer joier joer g iogw54 09 54ˆ-0 ereo450[ -xczvkdfvnd sfoerj oas fjo
Thats not the point of anarchy. In an anarchist government there would be no possiblity because there wouldnt be a president/house of reps/congres ect. so to say
laws are instilled to make peace and order so that nothing like this is to happen and thats why we vote on laws even though we might not have the desiding factor at hand we are still more than enough to help them mae their desicoin
That sounds more like Libertarianism. While it's possible that an anarchic community may not tolerate murder or thievery, there couldn't, by definition, be actual laws against such things. But mob justice can be just as effective as police and courts. For the record; I missed the original thread.