So Now That We Understand Anarchy A Bit More

i suspect that Psycho Bound does not acknowledge reputable anarchists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Emma Goldman was cool.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He probably doesn't even acknowledge the possibility that anarchy is not the solution in all cases. When the government is under the control of people who have a vested interest in the general contentment of society, it will eventually become a responsible member of the international community and abide by normal concepts of human rights. Anarchism is useful as a weapon against fascism, but it is no more useful than guerilla warfare as a system of government.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

sorry I havent responded for a while. Ive been away from any type of internet.

 

Same but yet the media is giving of incorrect facts.If you are going to say something a least have some backround on the topic

 

Sometimes people use the term "anarchy" to describe a situation of general lawlessness (like riots and stuff), rather than the actual philosophy of anarchism.

 

True but the media IS wrong in most cases anarchy is portrayed as being unlawful, yet in reality it is a whole diffrent use.

 

Actually, marxists and anarchists are pretty similar. Both, in true blue form, believe government is not necessary.

But reality says that man could never productively and peacefully coexist with his brother/sister without some form of organizaiton like a central government.

 

Is anarchy being portrayed as unlawful, or just lawless? If it's the latter, then it's actually accurate (philosophically speaking).

 

Even the presence of a government is not guarantee of peace or respect for the rights of others.

 

Reality says that man can't peacefully coexist with his brother/sister with organization like a central government.

 

thats soooooo true. its so frustrating when people keep saying "anarchy just means chaos."
Thank you for showing me that there is some informed people here

 

Government does the opposite. It garuntees a hierarchy of people in society. Leading to less respect to people under such hierarchy

 

True why should we let our nations be lead by one person? Why not us, at least give it a try.

 

Not necessarily. I honestly believe that we have more freedoms in some respects under our current form of government than we would under the mob rule that might occur in an anarchist society.

 

Thats a good point, can you explain a little more thought.

 

what does that have to do with this topic.

 

At the present time, the government will generally protect my right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., even if the majority dislikes what I say or believe. In an anarchist society, it would be perfectly acceptable (legally speaking) to beat up or even kill people who say things you don't like or burn down churches who promote beliefs that some person or group of people find objectionable.

Anarchy would be fine if we could hand-pick who got to live in our society. But that's not how it works. Completely eliminating all forms of government (laws, police, military, etc.) in most countries would result in tyranny by the assholes of the world.

 

Oh thank you I think I just might learn this topic

 

dead topic.... so sad. happens to be my fav