If people are in a riot they say that anarchists are running amock but in reality it means complete freedom.
Anarchy is good. But watch out with repeating post and topics. No stealing Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
QUOTE=Psycho Bound;2521691]Anarchy is good. But watch out with repeating post and topics. No stealing Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image![/QUOTE]
In the true sense of the word, anarchy means without leader, without scruples, without morals; makes me think anarchy is not an ideal state.
a lot of modern democracies had several anarchies, after fall of governments, ect. again some were bad, for there people others good, but to be in Anarchy does not mean to be in a state of caos.
if there was complete anarchy i could take a sawed off shotgun stick it in your mouth pull the trigger then have tea with the family later with no repercution is tha good or bad? you did nothing to me i just wanted to test out my new shotgun
"Anarchy is the sure consequence of tyranny; or no power that is not limited by laws can ever be protected by them” John Milton A culture without property, or in which creators can't get paid, is anarchy, not freedom. Lawrence Lessig There is no greater evil than anarchy. Sophocles Tyranny and anarchy are never far apart. Jeremy Bentham
If all is peaceful, its fine, but if things get chaotic there is no one to call. But it seems to me that humans don't really like to live in complete anarchy. In my experience people often end up picking an authority figure to lead them and make choices for them anyway before too long.
The thread is based on the political ideolgy of anarchist. Not on the deffinition of the word "anarchy"
Thats not what the politcal ideolgy of anarchist means at all. Let me state this AGAIN IN THE SENCE WE ARE SPEAKING OF, ANARCHY DOES NOT MEAN CHAOS OR DISORDER. IT MEANS AN AREA WITHOUT A LARGE, FORMAL GOVERNMENT RESTRICTING FREE EXPRESSION AND THE PROTECTION OF INDVISUALISM. aswell as quite many more things
Sir, I do not think that you are entirely understanding the scope of the term, "anarchy." You will have to point to a specific anarchist movement, or identify a specific figure you would like to focus your discussion on.
Then it is likely the same with anarchy. Anarchy means lack of a leader. At least, that is the original meaning.
Well, anarchism really arises from a general disaffection with traditional concepts of government. Right now, we actually do live under something resembling an anarchic system. Firstly, the government of your state actually interacts more directly in your life than the federal government ever will, and it controls nearly all of the services and institutions and infrastructure that you use with any degree of regularity. You drive mostly on state or local roads, for example. However, even then it is the local government that determins things like zoning and whether or not to renew someone's permit. A Wal-Mart can't just put a store up anywhere they want to, for example; if the charter of your city considers the place where Wal-Mart wants to put up the new store to be within the city limits, the federal government or the state government isn't going to just come along and force the city to give Wal-Mart the permit. Even then, you have to deal with homeowners' associations, and they have varying degrees of power depending on where you go. On top of city hall, though, is the government of your county, and the rules regarding that vary state-by-state. It's all very confusing, but the functional reality is that our government is a very fluid thing. Of course, under some definitions of anarchy, the town of Lansing Michigan, for example, wouldn't have a right to create a city hall and govern themselves as they wished. They would not be able to set any rules about what happens in their area. They would be under the gun to allow for anything that transpires. They couldn't even set up a basid regulatory structure. To some people, that's the ultimate in freedom, but the people who live in the city of Lansing, Michigan might actually want to form their own government. Would the anarchist hold a gun to these people's heads and tell them not to, or would they just leave them to do as they please? Even anarchism needs a thorough definition behind it besides just a bunch of disaffected ranting and raving. Personally, I think that "self-government" is a better ideal to reach for than "anarchy." That's what the US was really founded on, anyway.