So Now That We Understand Anarchy A Bit More

Of course. But thats not what Anarchys about

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know about political parties. And I understand that Anarchy isn't a party.

Free to do what? Free to be conquered by a foreign power? Free to descend into a mess? The thing is, we'd be more like tribes if we had local governments. We'd probably be fighting eachother rather than runnig our own communities. Or maybe somebody comes along and decides to go take over the adjacent local governments. Do you honestly think that it would cause order? End corruption?

I don't think America would accept Anarchy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is exactly how we are taught how to think. We have accepted the thought that without leaders and governments and hierarchys that nothing can be run with order. We dont even allow ourselves to accpet Anarchy as a possibilty.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because not only does it not work, but that form government (or lack thereof) is not productive for the welfare of society. That is why we have government; to maintain order, justice and personal liberties. Without it all of those things would be at the mercy of your neighbors. Essentially what you are promoting as Anarchy is equivelant to pressing the reset button and starting everything all over again. People are naturally going to want government, it is a method of self-preservation.

Look at American history from the beginning (or almost any country for that matter) and see how we started and what we have become. You will see a common pattern in nearly all societies and governments of how in the beginning there was almost no structure, laws or oversight and then as a society grows they evolve into wanting and needing a government regardless of size or type. People need and want leadership, organization and structure. It is how we as humans survive as long as we do.

 

No offense but Anarchy is a suitable government for cave men. not that i want to ruin anyones hobby. loool

 

Look back to ancient Mongolia, or the Scottish Highlands. They had no government at the time and they were constantly at war with one another. As in the case of Mongolia Ghengis Khan came in and united all the tribes into one. Through doing that he had established order and peace.

 

Why should you be accepted as an authority on anarchism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism


Your statement on anarchism versus libertarianism on the subject of abortion does not fit with my idea of anarchism.

Anarchism had a stronger base of support in the USA 100 years ago than it has had at any time in the last 30 years. But your version of anarchism may not be what I think about when I think of anarchism. I think of essentially left leaning extreme libertarians when I think of anarchists.

Those guys dressed in black breaking stuff at G8 and WTO protests also think they are anarchists (that is the ones who were not false flag under cover cops).

In an anarchist society, If I have a small factory and want to dump my moderately toxic waste in the stream that runs through my property how should my neighbors handle that situation?

 

This is an argument against our current form of government, or more accurately those in power. It is not an argument in support of anarchy.
You seek to heal a diseased tree by tearing it up at the roots. You are not trying to heal it.

And you do belong. You belong to a society of those who agree with you. You belong to a like-minded group. We are tribal in nature, and we seek our peers.
Something I have said many times - an anarchist is someone who lives in a society which tolerates him, in the only society in which he can safely proclaim he is one.
An anarchist requires order to provide him with an environment which allows him the freedom of his beliefs.

No, that isn't how we're taught to think. We think that because history has proved that anarchy does NOT lead to happiness ad order - it leads to individuals kept down by the system taking power for themselves. You're making the same mistake second-rate philosophers throughout history have made - forgetting that humanity is an animal species. Anarchy does not lead to freedom. It leads to a shift in the balance of power, and nothing more than that.

A void must be filled. The lack of control is a void... someone will fill it.
You're exactly the same as all idealists throught history - you think everyone is like you think you are. Even with controls, we have violent, anti-social individuals filling our prison systems... and plenty still on the loose. Without the controls society provides, they'll walk all over you and take whatever they feel like taking - and you can bet they'll be roaming in packs.
Africa. New Orleans. Everywhere order has broken down, someone has taken control. And others bow to that control in the hope of gaining at least some power for themselves.
We are monkeys.

What are you going to do about it - spout philosophy at them and hope they'll understand?

It is you who does not understand anarchy - you, protected and sheltered in a society which permits freedom of thought. You, who has no experience of the reality of that you espouse. You, who has read a book or two and thinks he sees utopia.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You can't handle the anarchy!​

...is a little bit too personal for decorum around here, although your point is very clear, Marquis.

I think it's better to diffuse the personal criticism / ad-hominem because all sorts of political idealism can go too far, and some discipline prevents the most vulgar connotations of anarchy from creeping into the atmosphere here.

 

If my point is very clear, then leave it alone.

I have not been vulgar. I have been unkindly honest in the expression of my opinion without being overly abrasive, and have no problem with anyone who can respond in kind.

Do we not permit that here anymore?

 

Its exactly how we are taught to think. You dont seem to understand how much training we are exposed to begining when you turn on the T.V. for the first time or show up to Kindergarden. History has NEVER proven that. From I what I can see, history has proven that Republic based governments leads to too much government power and opression of the people. Its clear in history that we have never provided a perfect or even a halfway working government that doesnt sacerfice indivisualism and freedom.

Im not a monkey. Thank you.

You're right. Im sheltered under a nation that really does permist freedom of thought. A nation in which children are sent home for wearing the American Flag. A nation in which I have been suspended and put under inverstagtion for flashing gang signs because I wear the Anarchy sign (A with circle.) A nation where you can be sued for saying fuck you to a person. A nation where music that contains "explicit materal" must be labeled as taboo. A nation in which being high is against the law. A nation that opresses art, music, though, speech, free thinking, and expression. A nation where its illegal to be gay, or to pray in school.
Its you that does not understand Anarchism. Its people like you that countiune to be blind and reject even the thought of it.

 

I don't care either way. I'm just glad we have a member here who knows how to use complete sentences and appears to have an extensive vocabulary.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Because again, an entire way of political thinking really is determined by how good someones grammer is

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Can we get over that already?

 

An anarchist community wouldn't have any actual rules, so anything the neighbors did would be acceptable (from the standpoint of anarchy).

 

Not completly true. Anarchy, again, just means the elitmantion of hierarchy in a community. The details would be up to them because The Ideology of Anarchy doesnt acctualy state that its left or right or what-have-you. Theres just many anarchist who share the same beliefs

 

I'm not saying there wouldn't be any sort of cooperation or shared views. But, in the toxic waste scenario, I still maintain that anything goes. Formal punishment of the polluter and/or the vigilante who takes him out would, technically, require a hierarchy of sorts.

 

Ok.

How would these anarchist communities handle problems like say the distribution of resources?

Would the US still be a recognized nation without a government and its agencies? So for example what would replace say the public school system? Or the mail which would have to go through different anarchist communities to be delivered? What would become of something like State hospitals? In your vision would the US remain a part of the international community? Who would represent it?

Would there still be a US currency? And what would you do with the armed services? Would they be dismantled? If so what would you do with the awesome arsenals at the governments disposal?

I ask this because there would be no way to maintain these agencies or institutions in an anarchist system. They would all have to be dismantled.

 

I blame Wiki. Looks like Andrew Keen wasn't such a hysteric after all.

 

You're talking recent history, not history. And again, seing as you appeared to miss it the first time around, you are not making an argument for anarchy. You are going to an extreme trying to find an alternative to a system which works overall, but still needs some maturity.

You're a symptom of modern times, and a throwaway society. Rather than spend any effort fixing something, you find it easier to throw it away and buy a new one. My guess is that you're under 25 years old... you see, I know your generation quite well. Not that mine was much better in that regard. The instant gratification generations.

We all are, underneath the trappings of civilsation. You're making a grand mistake if you believe civilised society would survive the removal of a system of government.

Rather, it's people like me who are all too aware of the eventual result of that which you hope would come to pass. Once again, you are not making an argument against social organisation. You are simply trying to say that because the current system has its flaws, you want to throw out the whole thing rather than spend any energy actually trying to fix it.
That permissive system is the only reason you're freely allowed to blather about anarchy here without any consequence.

Oh, and by the way. That anarchy symbol?
That wouldn't happen to be an indicator of organisation, would it? A group identity?

 

History has never proven Anarchy to work. Why throw away what works?

Better than being in a Communist country where you would be arrested for trying to spread the word of Anarchy. The only reason you can talk about Anarchy is because you have the freedom of speech.