What Is Anarchy??

[Hayduke]

First, anarchism isn't a misunderstood political philosophy. Because its not political, its defined as having no gov't, a state of lawlessness and confusion, it holds no political standing.

I believe this is a very common misunderstanding

Wasn't responding to you Hayduke. I believe that you have actually put a lot of thought into the ideology you adhere to, and have examined it to determine how it fits into the model fo the world that you have built for yourself.

Maybe I quoted your post in error when I should have quoted Musical Suicide's Post. Sorry about the confusion if that was the case.

I kinda thought so...thanks dude.

 

[CaptnJack]

misunderstood in what way?

 

[tipsgnob]

http://www.youtube.com/[youtube]bnKmyRrvpnM&feature[/youtube]

 

[fdd2blk]

this thread is anarchy.

 

[tipsgnob]

anarchy pie...with cheese......

 

[Hayduke]

misunderstood in what way?

"a state of lawlessness and confusion"

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

haha cause the dictionary can tell you how the day to day tactics and thought of real anarchism is?


I got bitter cause I started this thread, (as I said before) To meet some comrades and friends, who would like to discuss how we could show the world, (especially people like you and truth) that your idea of anarchism is completely wrong, weather or not you think anarchism is wrong, your definitions are wrong. But Insted I got a bunch of thick headed conservatives telling me, nope, your wrong, anarchism is wrong, your wrong, no, no..." haha its quite annoying.

Now, you all can sit there and pick apart everything, and twist it all around all you want. I know I am young, and have alot to learn. This world is filled with infinite knowledge, and everyday i learn more and more. Now, one thing I do know for sure, is when your lives are just rounding up to the end, and your trying to collect your little social secerity check, and hopefully your retirement fund, if you even have one, and still paying on your little house, still paying your car payment... I will be 100% self relient, growing all the food I need, able to make everything else I need, trading for what I dont have, and living amoungst the land with great friends and my love...perfectly happy. Till then, I'll work my jobs, and keep making money playing music at the bars, (cause thats fun anyways) and learning everything else I need to know how not to be like you.

Now, I really am getting tired of arguing with you conservatives, so have fun working for bare minimum your whole lives, and bringing your kids into the same deadly cycle. But dont pretend that Learning how to live fully self-relient is lazy, cause in my book its the exact oppisite. Working the same job that a monkey could do your whole life seems like a very boring, and very lazy to me.

Although i would love to keep going on, explaing how this is best for me, and "WE" cause im narssistic.. haha The fact still remains... capitalism is destroying our planet, and free thinkers will be the ones that abolish it.

You're not even arguing... You're just complaining about how we are coming up with reasons why you're incorrect in some of your assumptions (regarding morality) and why your ideology (anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-socialism) is paradoxical as anarchy implies sovereignty of the individual whereas socialism implies sovereignty of the State or a State like organization.

Socialism will never lead to anarchy, it is too Statist.

The closest thing to Anarchy is Capitalism which is built upon voluntary cooperation between individuals. Cooperation that has had the ground rules defined through custom, law, and tradition over the last 5,000 years. Amongst these are the fact that it is not permissible to kill, rape, murder, steal, and enslave.

Though in particular, explain to me how you think that destroying society and creating a lawless state is going to create a peaceful anarchy where everyone cooperates?

The end result of violence is distrust, hatred, and fear all of which are imcompatible with cooperation between groups and individuals.

Of course I don't think you'll answer it, either because your ideology doesn't have an answer to that question, or because you haven't done enough thinking about your ideology to determine how your ideology answers that.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

I believe this is a very common misunderstanding


I kinda thought so...thanks dude.

Not a problem, but what about you? What's your take on the entire lack of morality leading to a break down of society and the requirement that a third-party be brought in to enforce laws, and thus being incompatible with Anarchy?

 

[CaptnJack]

You're not even arguing... You're just complaining about how we are coming up with reasons why you're incorrect in some of your assumptions (regarding morality) and why your ideology (anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-socialism) is paradoxical as anarchy implies sovereignty of the individual whereas socialism implies sovereignty of the State or a State like organization.

Socialism will never lead to anarchy, it is too Statist.

The closest thing to Anarchy is Capitalism which is built upon voluntary cooperation between individuals. Cooperation that has had the ground rules defined through custom, law, and tradition over the last 5,000 years. Amongst these are the fact that it is not permissible to kill, rape, murder, steal, and enslave.

Though in particular, explain to me how you think that destroying society and creating a lawless state is going to create a peaceful anarchy where everyone cooperates?

The end result of violence is distrust, hatred, and fear all of which are imcompatible with cooperation between groups and individuals.

Of course I don't think you'll answer it, either because your ideology doesn't have an answer to that question, or because you haven't done enough thinking about your ideology to determine how your ideology answers that.

man TBT i dont even need to say anything you pretty much cover it, im just here for moral support

LMAO

 

[tipsgnob]

smoke more weed...........

 

[Hayduke]

Not a problem, but what about you? What's your take on the entire lack of morality leading to a break down of society and the requirement that a third-party be brought in to enforce laws, and thus being incompatible with Anarchy?

1.Lack of morality: The problem is this is a Kultural thing. My idea of morality does not jive with _________(insert group here). In order to even discuss morality, mythical doctrines must be removed.

2."Society" is an Illusion. again Kulture. Ours seems to be driven by greed, perpetuated by the preached consumerism. This is inherently bad for all things good (birds, bees, bunnies, rivers, wilderness etc. etc. etc.) these things have real value. The more that we sacrifice for cancerous growth, the lower everyone's quality of life becomes as the air is filtered less and aquifers dry up for the run-off of an impermeable surface. As the quality of life is slowly eroded, humans begin to conflict more, and a general feeling of uneasiness fills the cities. People start breaking some of their "morals" for the ultimate in morality, survival. Crime increases.

3. The third party "law enforcement": This too is mostly an illusion. As crime has increased (with population...the REAL problem) so have the budget of LEO. There are cops freaking everywhere, but crime does not go down. Most heinous crimes are crimes of passion, unless you are very lucky and one of these roving donut munching minority youth stomping wastes of life happen to stroll by while simultaneously not running plate checks on the damn computer (this is also why they do not use turn signals) and looks up...you are on your own. Will they catch the criminal later? Maybe.

Often people know who their attacker was and could with much more efficiency handle justice...after all who better to decide the severity of the punishment than the victim...this sounds radical, I know...but if people understood that if they perform an act against person or property knowing that they are likely to lose their life or at least some volume of hemoglobin, only the truly committed would attempt such crime. Narrows the possibility that the homicide was unjust.

The way it stands now...a punk only has to beat the police...not necessarily fast, just aware. And if it is not a crime of passion...the crook wears gloves and doesn't do anything stupid they get away...what is the purpose of the useless bloated Law Enforcement in this country....? 1. War 2. Revenue. Security has nothing to do with it...it is counter to their very existence. It is 100% necessary for LE to CREATE fear while using the voodoo of statistics to show minor progress.

As for the OP and others working to tear down society in order to have Anarchy, I think the conservatives (do not quote this I WILL deny it) are right here. This would lead to the opportunistic parasites preying on those who lost their 2nd amendment rights by not exercising them. Eventually though, the processed food runs out, and the inevitable. People will flee the cities.

Even If the whole shithouse comes tumbling down, the only way Anarchy could exist is in small bands...there will always be someone who tries to take control...and good people will hesitate to shoot. Therefore these small groups of people living in some cooperation, but mainly autonomous and self-sufficient would probably be underground and illegal. It is also mere fantasy with the number of people on the planet.

I understand that the immediate loss of gov. would probably be chaos... but Anarchy is not lawlessness and chaos. It may be the result...but to claim that this is what the ideology means is like saying that the definition of democracy is the oligarchic techno-industrial-military machine which drives the policy of the government and concentrates wealth while ripping off the unarmed subjects/owners...like we have now.

Disclaimer: Poster is admittedly crazier than a shithouse rat and should not be taken seriously.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

1.Lack of morality: The problem is this is a Kultural thing. My idea of morality does not jive with _________(insert group here). In order to even discuss morality, mythical doctrines must be removed.

2."Society" is an Illusion. again Kulture. Ours seems to be driven by greed, perpetuated by the preached consumerism. This is inherently bad for all things good (birds, bees, bunnies, rivers, wilderness etc. etc. etc.) these things have real value. The more that we sacrifice for cancerous growth, the lower everyone's quality of life becomes as the air is filtered less and aquifers dry up for the run-off of an impermeable surface. As the quality of life is slowly eroded, humans begin to conflict more, and a general feeling of uneasiness fills the cities. People start breaking some of their "morals" for the ultimate in morality, survival. Crime increases.

3. The third party "law enforcement": This too is mostly an illusion. As crime has increased (with population...the REAL problem) so have the budget of LEO. There are cops freaking everywhere, but crime does not go down. Most heinous crimes are crimes of passion, unless you are very lucky and one of these roving donut munching minority youth stomping wastes of life happen to stroll by while simultaneously not running plate checks on the damn computer (this is also why they do not use turn signals) and looks up...you are on your own. Will they catch the criminal later? Maybe.

Often people know who their attacker was and could with much more efficiency handle justice...after all who better to decide the severity of the punishment than the victim...this sounds radical, I know...but if people understood that if they perform an act against person or property knowing that they are likely to lose their life or at least some volume of hemoglobin, only the truly committed would attempt such crime. Narrows the possibility that the homicide was unjust.

The way it stands now...a punk only has to beat the police...not necessarily fast, just aware. And if it is not a crime of passion...the crook wears gloves and doesn't do anything stupid they get away...what is the purpose of the useless bloated Law Enforcement in this country....? 1. War 2. Revenue. Security has nothing to do with it...it is counter to their very existence. It is 100% necessary for LE to CREATE fear while using the voodoo of statistics to show minor progress.

As for the OP and others working to tear down society in order to have Anarchy, I think the conservatives (do not quote this I WILL deny it) are right here. This would lead to the opportunistic parasites preying on those who lost their 2nd amendment rights by not exercising them. Eventually though, the processed food runs out, and the inevitable. People will flee the cities.

Even If the whole shithouse comes tumbling down, the only way Anarchy could exist is in small bands...there will always be someone who tries to take control...and good people will hesitate to shoot. Therefore these small groups of people living in some cooperation, but mainly autonomous and self-sufficient would probably be underground and illegal. It is also mere fantasy with the number of people on the planet.

I understand that the immediate loss of gov. would probably be chaos... but Anarchy is not lawlessness and chaos. It may be the result...but to claim that this is what the ideology means is like saying that the definition of democracy is the oligarchic techno-industrial-military machine which drives the policy of the government and concentrates wealth while ripping off the unarmed subjects/owners...like we have now.

Disclaimer: Poster is admittedly crazier than a shithouse rat and should not be taken seriously.

Sounds like you're pretty rational to me, but let me make sure that I am understanding you.

I think you're saying that anarchy would devolve not into a ultra-individualist society but into a ultra-tribalistic society dominated by what would be best described as "mafia"/gang families that control turf (esp. food producing turf) and are constantly fighting against intruders?

 

[Hayduke]

Sounds like you're pretty rational to me, but let me make sure that I am understanding you.

I think you're saying that anarchy would devolve not into a ultra-individualist society but into a ultra-tribalistic society dominated by what would be best described as "mafia"/gang families that control turf (esp. food producing turf) and are constantly fighting against intruders?

The gang,turf control thing would probably be a step, after some kind of gov crash...but no that is not what I think Anarchy would devolve into. Tribal, maybe "small groups of people living in some cooperation, but mainly autonomous and self-sufficient" is how I described my blurred vision.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

The gang,turf control thing would probably be a step, after some kind of gov crash...but no that is not what I think Anarchy would devolve into. Tribal, maybe "small groups of people living in some cooperation, but mainly autonomous and self-sufficient" is how I described my blurred vision.

I think that anarchy would either end up back in the modern position we are in now where people call themselves "government" and use it as an excuse to steal from everyone else, or it would become a capitalist system (everyone being in business for themselves), with a reversion back to early 20th century societal norms where it was likely that everyone in a neighborhood knew everyone else.

Of course it is possible that such a system would actually end up collapsing into a corporatist oligarchy, but I can actually see the being more desirable than the current system, permitted that people are not actually reduced to absolute servitude (slavery) in which they are not permitted to change jobs, or apply skills that they have learned in the pursuit of better jobs.

Ultimately, I think if the government vanished tomorrow it would change very little, except perhaps a massive out break of gang violence as the drug gangs try to seize each other's turf, but with out a government to enforce the limitation of the availability of drugs prices would collapse leading to a sudden surge in money circulating in local economies instead of being sent to Columbian and Mexican Drug Cartels.

The War on Drugs,
Sponsored by the Columbian Producers Cartel
the Mexican Drug Cartel
Central American Drug Gangs
Johnson and Johnson "a family company"
Dow Jones Chemical Co.
Merck & Co.
The Coca-Cola Company
and
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT (who is doing it just because it gives some morons power over PEOPLE LIKE YOU!)

 

[Hayduke]

with a reversion back to early 20th century societal norms where it was likely that everyone in a neighborhood knew everyone else.

with out a government to enforce the limitation of the availability of drugs prices would collapse leading to a sudden surge in money circulating in local economies instead of being sent to Columbian and Mexican Drug Cartels.

The War on Drugs,
Sponsored by the Columbian Producers Cartel
the Mexican Drug Cartel
Central American Drug Gangs
Johnson and Johnson "a family company"
Dow Jones Chemical Co.
Merck & Co.
The Coca-Cola Company
and
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT (who is doing it just because it gives some morons power over PEOPLE LIKE YOU!)

We need to go further back than early 20th century as this was were the Kulture began.

That is an interesting thought as to why the drug gangs would not maintain any economic power with the loss of gov.

I like your list of evil doers, add the timber and paper industry and oil and gas, not only do they gain from the prohibition of Hemp, but they cause exponentially greater and irreversible harm to PUBLIC lands, at least in the West.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

We need to go further back than early 20th century as this was were the Kulture began.

That is an interesting thought as to why the drug gangs would not maintain any economic power with the loss of gov.

I like your list of evil doers, add the timber and paper industry and oil and gas, not only do they gain from the prohibition of Hemp, but they cause exponentially greater and irreversible harm to PUBLIC lands, at least in the West.

Public Lands should not exist, the existence of Public Lands is a myth. It is not possible for the "Public" to actually own land.

Have you tried to go gemstone hunting on these "public lands" 9 times out of 10 you will be told that you are NOT PERMITTED TO TAKE ANYTHING FROM THEM which defeats the purpose of them.

If public lands are for public use than does it not follow that anything short of exploitation for profit or industrial scale exploitation should be allowed?

At best the various Federal Holdings should be returned to the states and then the gestalt of Federal and State lands should be sold off to private individuals/NPOs that will have a vested interest in ensuring that Lumber Companies and other Resource Companies do not do more damage than absolutely necessary and eventually return to land to its original state or adopt a system that will permit for sustainable exploitation. (Timed Cutting in the case of Forest land so that a set amount of timber land will be taken every year until the cycle restarts where the first trees were cut down (with additional trees getting planted each season.)

The protection of property is more likely to occur at an individual level as the buck stops with the individual, and they can not hide behind others, or pass the blame onto some one else.


Though yes, Hearst should be added onto that list of beneficiaries of the Drug War.

Ironically, Obama is not ending the Drug War he is just obfuscating it. Does it really matter whether a person is locked up in jail or locked up in a "rehabilitation/re-education" center?

Especially when it is possible that the person was functioning to the benefit of society despite their choices that the clowns in the Federal Government Agree with?

Though other beneficiaries should include

The Police/Law Enforcement Unions

 

[Hayduke]

Public Lands should not exist, the existence of Public Lands is a myth. It is not possible for the "Public" to actually own land.

Have you tried to go gemstone hunting on these "public lands" 9 times out of 10 you will be told that you are NOT PERMITTED TO TAKE ANYTHING FROM THEM which defeats the purpose of them.

It is owned in trust with all citizens. If you remove gemstones or bighorn sheep. they are gone. Now you owe me and every other citizen for something that cannot have a price placed on it.

If public lands are for public use than does it not follow that anything short of exploitation for profit or industrial scale exploitation should be allowed?

Then the profits would have to be split among all owners not funneled off to, again concentrate the wealth of a few. Welfare public lands grazing is no different in scope or scale of the aforementioned loss of Morality except for I can not find how they benefit from the war on drugs.

Now assuming that the public lands be exploited for profit on an industrial scale...what about the future generations? The exploitation for profit of public lands is nothing less than a multi-generational theft.

At best the various Federal Holdings should be returned to the states and then the gestalt of Federal and State lands should be sold off to private individuals/NPOs that will have a vested interest in ensuring that Lumber Companies and other Resource Companies do not do more damage than absolutely necessary and eventually return to land to its original state or adopt a system that will permit for sustainable exploitation. (Timed Cutting in the case of Forest land so that a set amount of timber land will be taken every year until the cycle restarts where the first trees were cut down (with additional trees getting planted each season.)

The protection of property is more likely to occur at an individual level as the buck stops with the individual, and they can not hide behind others, or pass the blame onto some one else.


Though yes, Hearst should be added onto that list of beneficiaries of the Drug War.

I/we cannot trust the states to not exploit or sell off to those who will, for political gain, the American West. And your reference to Hearst is the exact reason why I/we cannot sell off public lands to private individuals, to at best barb-wire the public out of and at worst and most likely, exploit for natural resources, then level off and build a subdivision...cancerous growth usually kills the host.

Ironically, Obama is not ending the Drug War he is just obfuscating it. Does it really matter whether a person is locked up in jail or locked up in a "rehabilitation/re-education" center?

Well the guy is doing his dambdest to not get shot, while appearing as though he is not trying to not get shot. The political climate involving drugs is changing. Ironically it looks as though legalization will be an economic issue rather than a moral one.

As for the rehab...I do not believe the state has any business in victimless crimes. If people want help, fine, that is the only way it works anyhow. But the state has no business in MORALITY! separation of church and state...it is always good to keep your enemies separate lest they join forces and gang up on you!

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

It is owned in trust with all citizens. If you remove gemstones or bighorn sheep. they are gone. Now you owe me and every other citizen for something that cannot have a price placed on it.



Then the profits would have to be split among all owners not funneled off to, again concentrate the wealth of a few. Welfare public lands grazing is no different in scope or scale of the aforementioned loss of Morality except for I can not find how they benefit from the war on drugs.

Now assuming that the public lands be exploited for profit on an industrial scale...what about the future generations? The exploitation for profit of public lands is nothing less than a multi-generational theft.



I/we cannot trust the states to not exploit or sell off to those who will, for political gain, the American West. And your reference to Hearst is the exact reason why I/we cannot sell off public lands to private individuals, to at best barb-wire the public out of and at worst and most likely, exploit for natural resources, then level off and build a subdivision...cancerous growth usually kills the host.



Well the guy is doing his dambdest to not get shot, while appearing as though he is not trying to not get shot. The political climate involving drugs is changing. Ironically it looks as though legalization will be an economic issue rather than a moral one.

As for the rehab...I do not believe the state has any business in victimless crimes. If people want help, fine, that is the only way it works anyhow. But the state has no business in MORALITY! separation of church and state...it is always good to keep your enemies separate lest they join forces and gang up on you!

Where is their a moral issue relating to drugs?

I am not aware that there is any moral consideration as to any one's decision to ingest any substance they choose to ingest.

It is every individual's right to do whatever the hell they want to their body.


Morality involves not killing, raping, stealing, gambling (funny how the people that buy lottery tickets are likely those that harp against stock speculation the loudest when both are equally culpable of this), enslaving others, polygamy and other sexual deviancies, and physically or mentally abusing others.

I don't see anything about smoking, shooting up, altering one's state of consciousness, altering one's perception of reality, or getting drunk (as long as it doesn't lead to killing, raping, stealing or abusing others.

As long as you are not treading on other people's rights directly then you should be permitted to do what you wish.

Some one smoking a cigarette doesn't directly hurt me. That is it is not the conscious decision of the person smoking to cause me harm, and recognizing that I fail to see the justification for cigarette laws.

A person smoking Marijuana isn't going to cause me harm.

A person doing crack or cocaine is not going to do me harm unless they are driven to committing crimes due to the enforced inflation of prices for those substance by the irrational War on Drugs.

Though in the future it is possible that the War on Drugs will be extended to include Nicotine (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2236807/posts)

The more the government tries to solve what others view as problems the worse it makes everything by creating new problems. Government as a tool of social reform is like using a sludge hammer to pop a zit. Sure, it might work, but after a few times of doing it you are going to kill yourself, just like using government to fix society's ills can be demonstrated to be resulting in the destruction of society.

 

[Hayduke]

Whoa easy dude...I agree with you! I do not care whether you smoke crack while slamming meth and making love to your goat...as long as the goat consents.

The moral issue of drugs was in reference to your "Does it really matter whether a person is locked up in jail or locked up in a "rehabilitation/re-education" center?"

The rehab is Kulture making a moral decision for someone they deem unfit to make for themselves, after kulture decides it is no longer crime for incarceration.

Again Morality is kulture/culture dependent. Mine may not be yours, and that is ok as long as we keep it that way.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Whoa easy dude...I agree with you! I do not care whether you smoke crack while slamming meth and making love to your goat...as long as the goat consents.

The moral issue of drugs was in reference to your "Does it really matter whether a person is locked up in jail or locked up in a "rehabilitation/re-education" center?"

The rehab is Kulture making a moral decision for someone they deem unfit to make for themselves, after kulture decides it is no longer crime for incarceration.

Again Morality is kulture/culture dependent. Mine may not be yours, and that is ok as long as we keep it that way.

Lol, and remember, WHINNY means NO, lol.


I don't know, there are somethings like
Murder
Rape
Theft

that are pretty universal.

Slavery can be added onto that list at least in Western and Western Influenced Civilizations (though apparently seeings as how it's been nearly 150 years since the end of its existence in the United States we have forgotten what it was and are now permitting the Federal, State and Local Governments to turn us all into slaves.)

Freedom implies Risk
Safety implies Slavery

The ultimate form of Safety would be being stuck in a bubble and not permitted to leave it, or move the bubble from wherever it is placed.

Of course the question is then, who would want to live like that? The government of course responds that if you shove the child in the bubble they will be safe, and if you shove yourself into the bubble you'll be safe and secure, but to me, being stuck in a bubble sounds pretty damn boring.