So Now That We Understand Anarchy A Bit More

i've got to admit that i am thoroughly enjoying the "debuttling" in this thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Gee, you don't say...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Actually part of that sentence would be entirely untrue.
Your age (and thus experience of life and its variety) affects greatly the presentation.
Youth tends to see things in absolutes, in blacks and whites and this months' fashion is the be all and all.
So apart from your youth making you tend to go overboard with the, um, desirability, of anarchism it also means that you probably don't have the actual depth of knowledge about that other, older, (dare one say more politically aware all round) posters have.

Have to do something to pass the time, don't we?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I understand anarchy. I understand the whole idealogy. But there is just no way it could work. Even if it did work it would be worse then the state of government now. Psycho Bound, the current system has problems. What makes you think a system in which the government is smaller would help any? There would still be corruption and there would still be disagreement between opinions. I'd rather have the government we have now than one that has absolutely no leader.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, you've finally said something here that's true: Spain is neither cold nor a continent.

 

You claim not to be, yet you support the very ideals that it's based upon. Trust me, I'm not lying to you, nor am I trying to mislead or berate you (not too harshly at least) but what you subscribe to as your ideal form of government is in not Anarchy.

Do yourself, and everybody else a favor and study all forms of government before you come to a conclusion as to what you really "believe" in because obviously you don't quite have a real idea yet of what you're talking about. That's perfectly okay though, some of us go through our whole lives not having any idea.

The 70's was a decade of turbulence and strife for the entire planet... in many ways we are STILL feeling the repercussions of decisions made during that decade. We're at least fortunate that Disco died for good with it. The 70's punk scene was born out of frustration of the young generation of the day over perceived lack of progress from the 60's subcultures. The ideas they adopted, and that you're preaching weren't even their own, they're at LEAST 220 years old... and they ARE Libertarian in nature.

I can't use links yet, but I would suggest for you to watch a couple of youtube videos:
The Philosophy of Liberty
Political Spectrum Explained

 

I would think that Anarchy is more about rejection of any kind of established hierarchy of power (you as an individual was "born into"). It's not just about rejection of state, supreme court and state government per se. Corporations, strong men, criminal gangs can exert power no Supreme Court can. Anarchy is hierarchyless state. Since people forgot how to exist without rigid hierarchy of wealth and/or power they assume that hierarchyless societies would necessarily descend into chaos and mayhem.

 

THANK YOU!!
Jesus Christ someone who gets it

 

I dont think you do. Because if you did, you'd see that it would be able to work. How could their be corruption if there was nothing to be curropted? (SP?)
The government we have now? If we countiune with the government we have now were going to be bought out by China lol.

 

yet you apparently do not. do you fail to see how a free market does tend to lead to extreme social stratification?

 

look phycho bound the goverment is what decides if a war should be waged and how diplomacy is done how would you expect millions of people to do that. most of them would screw it up and we could end up a weak open country to invasion.

 

See in my eyes, Anarchy is Liberatarianism mixed with Communism. Power to the people, who are all treated exactly the same doesn't sound that great. We need a leader. Without organization, without a voice we would be no better than the Mongolians before Genghis Khan unified them. We would no longer be the United States. The reason is because we would all be alot of smaller governments not unified.

And who's to say that one local government wouldn't desire power? Wouldn't try to take over others and become a hierarchy? Such as Greece when it was a few separate countrys.

And on what basis do you provide that statement?

 

look without a leader the united states would take to long to decide what to do because everybody would want to vote on it and it has a much greater chance of being the wrong choice.

 

there actually would probaly be 5 or so that would then more would and so on until all someone had to do was come in and beat us one by one. like russia or china,ect.

 

Not true at all. Due to the fact that Communism and Liberatarianism do not provide power to "The People" and creates hierarchys in their governments, not allowing people to be treated the same. Im unsure how Anarchy is a mix of those.
It is because were "unified" as people put it, by respersintives in power that "The People" have no control over that we are in such a crisis right now. All you create with republics (which is what we are) is heirarchys of repersintives who do not have to listen to the people, in which most do not.

That statement was a joke. Haha, you know?

 

And the governments the one who decides all our wars? The reason that so many people were drafted against their will into the milatary in the 1940's during WW2 even though we had plenty of voulenters. Those people were forced to die for their government when they didnt even have to. Thats the flaw in our government. There's no freedom or reconaztion for the indivsiual. Im sick of being seen only as a citizen of the United States and being repersented by someone that I dont care to be repersented by. The politicans in DC dont listen to what we, the-so-called-"People" have to say. We are ignored, and they are making choices for us. I belong to no government, no social class, no political party, no country. I am an indivisual. Not a number, not a statistic

 

actually, it wasn't.

proudhon and marx were each enormously influenced by the other. bakunin and kropotkin described their anarchisms as communistic, emma goldman described herself as a communist, as do many syndicalists.

if you're so keen on calling yourself an "anarchist," why not try informing yourself about it?

 

Then you are confused on political idealogys. Liberatarianism provides power to the people. It is essentially the type of government which our founding fathers created. That's where the power to the people part comes form. Then in Communism everyone is treated equally (except those who run it).

If representatives aren't listening, then don't re-elect them. That's the problem, people are letting it happen. If you want to be heard, elect someone who'll listen. If they fail to, don't re-elect them.

Where would we be without a leader? Absolutely nowhere.

 

Im not confused at all. I believe that you are. I think that youre forgetting that Anarchy has nothing to do with certian political beliefs, wether on the right or left or middle or what have you. Unlike with the parties you listed.

Sometimes, you dont have a choice. Maybe both (or however many) dont listen and now guess what? Youre stuck.
We'd be in a free nation

 

Psycho, please read before continuing this discussion.

It is clear that the majority of "Anarchists" share the same political and sociological ideals.

 

Free to re-create the Oxbow Incident.