This discussion have been goin on for a while in another thread... TruthSeeker We are not ready for Anarchy... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mooter Oh yes we are... Maybe the man knows there is just trying to make a smooth transition with an inevitable spiritual revolution that defies the mans laws, but what revolution doesnt have anarchy in it? Besides, with Bush on his knees to start a war, now is the perfect time. Besides, then I can fend for my Life and safety in a more critical context and not worry about having to keep a job, heh actually of course, middle-class suburban America wont be ready but the rich wont matter because theyll have their spots and the poor, well, its barely a change. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TruthSeeker Anarchy can cause a lot of confusion if the society is not ready to be like the members of a body - helping each other out, depending on each other. It is called interdependence. Don't know if that would work right away... and maybe even later... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mooter Why not? 9/11 just proved that example --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- notme2000 Speaking of 911... Can you blame those poor people who jumped to their deaths cause they couldn't stand the flames? So can you really blame someone for taking their own life cause they can't stand any more of it? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- moonman Nope. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TruthSeeker Is a collapsing building a good example to prove that Anarchy does work nowdays?? I do believe someday it will work... but hey... the world is pretty messy today... we need to solve a lot of issues before we can be free from a system. And even when we are ready for the change, we will need a very smooth and well planned transition; otherwise it will be just a mess... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- notme2000 But that will MAKE it a system. True freedom has no requirements. All we'd have to do is stop. Stop abiding by the system. That's the problem with absolute freedom, you aint gunna like what most other people do with it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TruthSeeker That's exactly my point. We need to prepare people for such freedom. For example, if we just let our kids do whatever they want, that won't be very good, isn't? For this reason, we need first to change our education system and our media, so that people can prepare to live in a free world, instead of a messy one where competition is more important than peace. First we need to change ourselves, then we need to change the world. I think we should start a new thread on Anarchy. I'm going to do it and post the link here...
I suppose it's possible in the very distant future, but I have diffuculty imagining anyone in a position of power being willing to just relinquish it for the good of the people.
We are not ready, yet. The current earth-system is centered arround one thing- Money. If we can make each and every person equal (remove all sense of money, property and value) provide every person with the same ammount of food, water, shelter and entertainment. We will have no need to rob and kill each other. This is unfortunately unfeasible, take away all the rules and people will do everything they can to get as big a piece of the cake as they can, including rape violence and murder. Because such is the nature of people. Now I don't believe humans are born evil, we are taught to kill and hurt each other by our environment that we grow up in. If ALL children were given equal opertunities and equal ammounts of love growing up. They would learn to love, and would find no need for and have even a loathing for violence and hate ie. change the very nature of man himself. The world would then have no need for rules or controll to survive in harmony. BUT changing the nature of man and inhibiting anarchy is likely to halt (seemingly) vital things such as research within all fields of science including health care, there would be no drive for people to work without money. Without people working there would be no way to do elaborate experiments discovering the nature of the matter that we are made of, and discoveries for cures to diseases which could wipe our species out. No public water or electricity, no education, no healthcare. No, we couldn't do with anarchy at the moment. But what we do need is a new system. A system that works, yet allows total freedom for the individual. An new ultra efficient ultra effective energy source could be the answere. This doesn't exist yet.
You are right I do agree with you. Again also I think my mention of 9/11 wasnt specific enough as I meant how it brought people together. Anyway, yes, you are right, in my Piscean idealistic mind I guess the process of anarchy as being a healthy way of humanity collectively releasing all of its pent up emotions at once. Yes it is scary. Many people would go crazy with rape and murder and all that like children who are not allowed to do and say certain things which make them want it even more. In the process many innoocent (lets not get into the "noones innocent argument at this moment) people will fall fatal to this process and that...sucks. Will there ever be an amount of time that the people who need to get so much out of their system or will they grow tired? How many generations would it take. How many crimes are committed because the criminals werent able to get what they wanted? If there were no laws, sex-depraved people can hook up with the gigolos and hos, junkies can die off with their drugs, murderers can kill the weak and suicidal and the rest more mentally stable people will be somewhere else where they can hide away from the psychos and maturely reprogress. Of course Im forgetting things and consequences, but, anyway.... If you think about how much we really nedd, its not that much, food, clothing, shelter, how long will it take us to get bored of our toys and distractions? Look at great ancient civilizations like the Maya and Egyptians. They had everything they needed except the PHYSICAL medical knowledge we have to day. I guess what Im saying is, I personally wouldnt mind if we went back to that kind of culture but not without the adiition of some of the things of today. ie internet, mountain dew, and the occasional hot rod or luxury car, which would make another good thread----If we went back as an indigenous society, what are 3 things we would like to keep from today? Anyway, youre right, total anarchy would not be good, system changes would be better, but a giant arena for a bunch of people to go crazy in for a decade would be interesting, or then again we have LA and New York in the 80s and 90s Id also like to apologies for any unintelligent comments such as "Murderers can kill off the weak and suicidal" I just got off work, have to head out again but you know what I mean
felix, Me... moonman, Yep. That's why I said to concentrate on educating people, changing us first, and then the world... There are some scientists that have been working on fusion. They are almost there, so it will exist soon... With that, if I remember well my Chemistry class, a 1g of butter can light up and entire city...! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! mooter, I am already extremely bored and I'm just 18. I don't know how people even at my church can stand... it's pretty sad... I really wished people there would realize that they actually love the world, and that they are pretty far away from God... as it seems...
You can never be ready for anarchy, cause you're always ready for it. Anarchy is not about peace. So if the rich aren't ready for it they'd die. Oh well. That's anarchy. Interdependance and society are the OPOSITE of anarchy.
isn't Isn't the question Are WE ready for anarchy? defeating itself. I experience anarchy not as a WE experience. it is a ME ME ME experience. if people band together, to organize themselves, even as a couple of anarchists... they are 'violating' anarchy, so to speak, by organizing, teaming up, they have made themselves more unified, and less anarchist than an anarchist on his own, an individual. and yes, even sex is a commodity. anyway... rant.....
an anarchist society will not be able to survive considering the amount of knowledge we as humans have amassed.. ppl will always try to strive towards 'development'.. i hate that word... it is used so incorrectly... i think we've lost the connotation of that word... pretty synonymous with 'feeding the entire world with new stuff so they can get a rush and we can make more cash'.. i knoww that's really restrictive of the idea i have in my head.. but u get my point... i liked the points about how before we can have a new system in place, we have to re-educate ppl... the comment about being indigenous again is so insightful... i dont think we'd be able to go back, but we can definitely take ideals that were practised and create a lifestyle void of pure rubbish consumerism and pursuit of false dreams and hopes created by fat cats in their big leather chairs... one day... i knoww we'll be there.. where we think of helping someone instead of exploiting em...
also isn't current anarchist philosophy stating that we are already within a state of anarchy and what makes one a 'participant' in such is just realizing it for his.herself? so there is no overthrow. and we are ready because we are already living it, so they say.
If we pick out only the emotionally unimpaired and highly social people for this Anarchy colony, I might venture a tentative yes. If not, hell no.
You get just one nutcase, sadist, or criminal of any sort in the mix and the whole thing would collapse.
Re: also Yes, and no. "Government" is an absolute myth. There is no denying that an international Mafia exists under the euphemism of "The State" consisting of politicians, lawyers, and armed thugs who do their bidding. But "Government", to put it quite simply, cannot exist. Nor can "Authority" exist. Yes, the State has the power to put a gun to my head, or throw me in jail. Any organization with enough guns can do this. Is this authority? Not according to the dictionary: "2 a: power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior" –Merriam Webster. The government cannot control my behavior. They can make it in my rational self interest to do what they say by threat of physical punishment. But this is simply bullying, and not "Authority." In order for a "Government" to exist, "Authority" obviously must exist as well. Here's the definition of "Government": "the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it." –Merriam Webster As you can see, "Authority" is integral to the definition of "Government." If you tried to define "Government" without "Authority" it would just be a group of people that point guns at people and take their property. This would make any street gang a "Government." The only difference inbetween the two is their size. The State is nothing more than a territorial monopolist. The United States is a parasite. A leech sucking the life of out America's economy. The United States is also a terrorist organization, and needs to get the hell out of America. You stated that modern anarchists did not advocate revolution, or overthrowing the state. This is false. Anarchists still advocate destroying the state. Just because "Government" doesn't exist doesn't mean a gang isn't stealing over fifty percent of my income. The United States steals trillions of dollars from the American people. I'm suprised there has not been some sort of insurrection in the past century. Perhaps the internet will change that. Never before in human history has there been a way for like minded people of different ethnic, cultural, economic, and geographical divisions to come together to discuss ideas in the way that we can on the Net. Looking back from the future, I'm confident that our children and grandchildren will agree that the Net was the match that lit the fuse on the ideaological bomb that destroyed the State. I grow more confident of this with every passing day. Most of you seem to believe that anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist. This is a preposterous assumption. I am a capitalist. An = No ; Archy = "Government". There's nothing more to the definition. I better add that most "anarchists" are extremely anti-capitalist. But they aren't anarchists. They're fucking retarded collectivists/primitivists/democrats(The kind that believe in "Direct Democracy")/communists/idiots. Don't listen to a word these fucks say! They are the most dangerous people on the planet! They are the people would are preventing space exploration/exploitation! They are the ultimate enemy to freedom! They are the ultimate statists! ahhhhhh!!!!!!11111
Oh, yes. My answer to the poll question: Anarchism. It's not something you can or can't be ready for.
Either you're not good with economics, or you're only refering to the Income Tax. Which one is it? There are other forms of taxation, you know. The state probably ends up with much more than 50% of my income.
That has always been true, I suppose... Hopefully it is getting better... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As far as i know, anarchy involves no system of government whatsoever, so it would entirely depend on people helping one another, or every person on in the anarchistic society to be COMPLETELY independant. First, people are too greedy to work together for the greater good without taking a little for themselves. Not everybody is this way, but the people who ARE would ruin things for the people who AREN'T. Selfishness in NOT anarchy. Second, you could never have EVERYONE in a society be totally independant. Sooner or later you would have people depending on other people and this would lead to a "you owe me" lifestyle and mindset. This mindset would soon translate into some sort of System of debt and repaying of debt. A system is NOT anarchy. So i would say take only the people who COULD work towards a greater good (or be totally self sufficient) and let them be anarchist in their own community. But that is a controlled environment. And control is NOT anarchy. So what IS anarchy? The gutter punk, living on the streets, bumming for money and squatting with the friends he still has left? Nope, thats not it my friend. A true anarchist would relenquish his need for money by not using it because it is a tool of the government, the driving force of economy, and the basis of most of the problems in The System. He would also be more self sufficient then sleeping on a street corner. Is it the computer junkie, hacking into government sites and tampering with sensitive files, living in a darkened room with a false sense of power? Not at all. A true anarchist would probably not even own a computer, because the government can monitor it too easily, and it also just makes you another gear in the system. To me (this implies opinion, so if people don't aggree with me, don't say i presented this as truth) an anarchist would probably resemble the stereotypical hermit. Living in the woods, isolated from others and therefore the government. Out of reach of the system and those who partake of it, he can be totally free from its bondage, which he is obviously against. He has to kill and scavange for his own food, gather and cut wood for heat, and build his own shelter, but hey, at least he doesn't have a social security number. I'm not for or against anarchy, but in our present sittuation, and with out culture so HEAVILY weighed down by money, greed, corruption, war, and the nonchalant disrespect for ourselves and each other, out society couldn't even dream of surviving an anarchistic change in tides. Again, this is all my opinion, i'm sure no one agrees with me. So i end in a strange phrase i once came accross: "If a group of Anarchist finally DOES come into power, would they, by principle, have to fight themselves?"
