Anacrchy- Crazy People, Or Has Some Merit

I am an anarchist in a way. Not in every aspect but I believe it has merit. So anyone reading this who wants to ask about anarchy FROM an anarchist please ask

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it doesn't make any sense at this point in our history. Disorganized behavior will only lead to our destruction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Accutly (SP?) if you look at the founding of America, its very Anarchist based.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Freedom is not the same thing as anarchy.

 

I have to be with spidergoat on this one. We need certain things upheld, and force is needed to uphold them (because there will always be bad people): we need government for certain basic principles:

• to defend the borders

• to defend property rights

• to recognize and enforce contracts

• to adjudicate disputes

• to protect the rights to life and liberty

• to enforce the law

• to establish uniform standards of incorporation for businesses

Although these things could, in theory, be provided by a free market in an anarchist situation, it's still not very likely, and it's why a minarchist government is needed.

 

Revolution and something about blood to water the tree of liberty.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

in a way it is. Anarchy says "dont tell me how to live my life mofo" and thats how freedom was. We cause anarchy for England when we fought for indepence.

 

i dont understand because no one cares how you (not you specifically but really anyone) live, except maybe now being that your under 18 (assuming you are). certainly not in the u.s anyway, but it depends on where you live. some cities you can do anything you want, as long as you dont infringe on other peoples rights. which is basically what you are saying with 'dont tell me how to live my life mofo' or another way 'dont interfere with how i live.'

i was never an anarchist (although not what peole would view as conventional), anarchists tell other people how to live and is kind of an annoying trait to have.

like i said, do what you want just dont force me to be like you (not you specifaclly).

 

another thing is not to read too much into lyrics. what happens is they need to fill up 10-17 tracks on a cd and they are playing to a certain demographic. iow's they know where the $$$ is coming from. meanwhile they go home to their big house and nice cars and the person who falls for the lyrics is left with shit.

 

anarchism would work fine in a small community but it isnt practical on a large scale

 

Actually, in a way [more correctly, in every way] it isn't.

Anarchy doesn't mean anything close to the emotional gibberish you think it does.
Anarchy means without government; chaos.

 

i thought it meant control from the bottom up?

 

Nope.

Here's the etymology:

Origin:
1530–40; (< MF anarchie or ML anarchia) < Gk, anarchía lawlessness, lit., lack of a leader, equiv. to ánarch(os) leaderless

From the Greek root archos, meaning leader.

 

Anarchist ideas have only occasionally inspired political movements of any size, and "the tradition is mainly one of individual thinkers, but they have produced an important body of theory."[71] Anarchist schools of thought had been generally grouped in two main historical traditions, individualist anarchism and social anarchism, which have some different origins, values and evolution.[2][5][72] The individualist wing of anarchism emphasises negative liberty, i.e. opposition to state or social control over the individual, while those in the social wing emphasise positive liberty to achieve one's potential and argue that humans have needs that society ought to fulfill, "recognizing equality of entitlement".[73] In chronological and theoretical sense there are classical — those created throughout the 19th century — and post-classical anarchist schools — those created since the mid-20th century and after.

Beyond the specific factions of anarchist thought is philosophical anarchism, which embodies the theoretical stance that the State lacks moral legitimacy without accepting the imperative of revolution to eliminate it. A component especially of individualist anarchism[74][75] philosophical anarchism may accept the existence of a minimal state as unfortunate, and usually temporary, "necessary evil" but argue that citizens do not have a moral obligation to obey the state when its laws conflict with individual autonomy.[76] One reaction against sectarianism within the anarchist milieu was "anarchism without adjectives", a call for toleration first adopted by Fernando Tarrida del Mármol in 1889 in response to the "bitter debates" of anarchist theory at the time.[77] In abandoning the hyphenated anarchisms (i.e. collectivist-, communist-, mutualist- and individualist-anarchism), it sought to emphasise the anti-authoritarian beliefs common to all anarchist schools of thought.[

 

(from wiki_)

 

Yep.

The etymology agrees with your citation.

Note that in both cases, the key is the lack of an organizational structure. An anarchist, by definition, opposes subjugation. How they choose to go about practicing that opposition, is an entirely different matter.

 

kinda this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism

 

(the article im trying to get to is on a website that isnt working)

 

Indeed.

Yet, to me, the very notion of an "anarchic organization" is silly.
Firstly, it's self-contradictory. Secondly, its success would necessitate its own dissolution.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

the way it was explained to me (a while ago) was that it would effectively function like a town council,with the people (as in the entire populace) deciding policy and a few nominated people carrying out the policy but with no autonomous power.