And I don't support Laissez-Faire economics. They aren't naturally what would happen, which means they aren't Live and Let Liveish. Which means I'm against them. My beliefs can be summarized in one sentence: do whatever the hell you want to. Anarchy and Laissez-Faire economics, however contradictory it may seem, do not follow that way of thinking. Took me a while to realize this.
Although this takes Anarchy quite literally, you could never have a true anarchist on the internet, otherwise you wouldn't be able to communicate with him (Language follows particular ordered syntax which obviously is the opposite to Anarchy) and Using Emails or checking out webpages follows a number of underlining protocols (HTTP/SMTP) again "ordered". So BOH, you were never truly an Anarchist to begin with.
Few people understand anarchism. We are so used to the idea of leaders, law, elites, slavery (in all its forms) that the idea people could be responsible for themselves seems completely foreign. After reading The Prince I have come to understand that the majority of people do not want their liberty. It is a burden on them that requires attention away from their distractions. People want some liberty certainly but far less than what they really have. It is an odd thing that we live in an anarchy yet people don't perceive it. They think rules and laws protect them. How do they reconcile the fact that as their power increases so too does their liberty? Is that not exactly what you would expect if there were no law at all? The biggest and baddest would rule? And they do! Anarchism is entirely different though but we are a long way off from being able to destroy the anarchy around us and replacing it with true liberty. We are a long way off because people would rather assume they know what anarchism is. They equate it to anarchy i.e., chaos. That is easier than actually finding out what it really is. No, people are happy little slaves. Give me money, give me power and I will give you freedom. That is the mantra of the elite and we have been falling for it since Greek times.
I think there's a difference between the Letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law, and somehow that's applicable here. I was confused about how the world worked, so I believed anarchism would work, or at least would be ideal.
Anarchy is stupid. No laws will become chaos; government is necessary That doesn't mean we shouldn't rethink it, but we do need social order.
We don't need social order, we need whatever adheres to the three basic rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government doesn't let that happen? Don't follow the laws. But with anarchy it seems like there is no government, period.
Killing people and violating children constitute gross violations of liberty and therefore would be stopped by an anarchist society. Seriously people - read a %$#*ing book! Try Godwin, Proudhon, Tucker, Stirner, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tolstoi etc... If you just keep listening to WTO brats that call themselves "anarchists" your never going to figure out anarchism. Anarchism is freedom with maximum liberty. Law is violence and oppression. Anarchism is egalitarian order. Law is the rule of the elite. Give your heads a shake - only fools talk about things they don't understand and haven't investigated.
Scott Free, anarchy is no government, therefore no order. Anarchy is the epitomy of stupidity. It won't work; sure, we can hope that we get along, but if I wanted to kill you or rape your sister, I could go ahead and do it without consequences.
When people say they are anarchists they don't realize they are talking about a proved social system (anarchism). Anarchism is a system with no leaders and no law (dictates) where liberty, contract and social norms are the formative principles. Agreed and anarchy is what we have now. Anarchism would put elitism back in its box. BTW, Ad hominem isn't an argument and only makes you look stupid. What evidence do you have of that? What do you know of anarchism? Anyway, this is a pointless discussion. I decided a long time ago people are, by and large, too stupid to understand anarchism. It's probably just as well since people instantly bring up rape and murder. I'm not sure if your waiting for your opportunity or if the fear of punishment is the only thing keeping you from those things? The same argument is used against atheism which makes me wounder what kind of people religionists are. Your not religious are you?
I'm afraid everything is defined by Elitism. I mean you could put forwards say a Linux system built by Open Source Volunteers and prove that Anarchy works, however the truth is that not everyone can aid the development of that Linux build, those that do it technically are Elitists because they have the capacity that others do not. Those that do not have the capability of programming are left wanting software tools to do the particular jobs they need, which only get done when such elitists decide it suits their needs and not before. (Obviously those incapable of programming can attempt to purchase the efforts of such elitists but again this feeds Elitism and undermines the Base anarchy that people claim to exist.)
Scott Free; good name for an anarchist. Hey, I always thought that society values what it does because of boundaries and by default, law, either natural or man made. Anarchy- great in theory, impractical in reality amd relegated to libraries and Uni tutorials.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Think about what your saying for a moment. In anarchy (chaos) the biggest and most powerful make the rules and tell others what to do. How long do you think that chaos could last before there was law? Before what we have now? Minutes, hours, a year? Not long. All we have now is what is naturally born out of chaos. Anarchism is the opposite of that. It says everyone has rights and freedoms as though they were the biggest and baddest. The only catch is that those rights and freedoms extend only so far as they don't intrude onto someone else's. That is extremely different than what we have today.
Privilege not capacity defines elitism. People are not equal and do not have the same capacities but capacity does not entitle people to more privilege. It is a violation of the programmers liberty to tell them how and what to program. It isn't a violation of anyones liberty if programmers don't build the programs you want.
