What Is Anarchy??

The long and short of it is, in my opinion, If history has shown us anything about government and the way people naturally co-habitate, is that free will has, and will always be the kink in the chain of a smooth running system. There will always be selfishness, greed, and deceit. History also has shown us that every system that has been created to quell this problem, by itself has been has been ineffective eventually due to the degradation of societies will and willingness of one greedy headstrong entity to take over, become extinct. To be successful one has to look past the bounds of any one particular system and take fassets of all systems, hybridized government if you will. Countrys need to learn to co-exisist with each other without depending on one another, be more self sufficient and become respected for their innovations in creating and preserving things we all need, not feared for what they have the capacity to do to us if we do not yeild. The goal is to be one united front as a people to conquer obsticales, not to put on a front to impose fear in those who have the easy answer.

deiseldawg said:

The long and short of it is, in my opinion, If history has shown us anything about government and the way people naturally co-habitate, is that free will has, and will always be the kink in the chain of a smooth running system. There will always be selfishness, greed, and deceit. History also has shown us that every system that has been created to quell this problem, by itself has been has been ineffective eventually due to the degradation of societies will and willingness of one greedy headstrong entity to take over, become extinct. To be successful one has to look past the bounds of any one particular system and take fassets of all systems, hybridized government if you will. Countrys need to learn to co-exisist with each other without depending on one another, be more self sufficient and become respected for their innovations in creating and preserving things we all need, not feared for what they have the capacity to do to us if we do not yeild. The goal is to be one united front as a people to conquer obsticales, not to put on a front to impose fear in those who have the easy answer.

Click to expand...

Very nicely put.

deiseldawg said:

The long and short of it is, in my opinion, If history has shown us anything about government and the way people naturally co-habitate, is that free will has, and will always be the kink in the chain of a smooth running system. There will always be selfishness, greed, and deceit. History also has shown us that every system that has been created to quell this problem, by itself has been has been ineffective eventually due to the degradation of societies will and willingness of one greedy headstrong entity to take over, become extinct. To be successful one has to look past the bounds of any one particular system and take fassets of all systems, hybridized government if you will. Countrys need to learn to co-exisist with each other without depending on one another, be more self sufficient and become respected for their innovations in creating and preserving things we all need, not feared for what they have the capacity to do to us if we do not yeild. The goal is to be one united front as a people to conquer obsticales, not to put on a front to impose fear in those who have the easy answer.

Click to expand...

Your even worse than the Socialist.

You're stating that some how Society exists with out VOLUNTARY COOPERATION.

Society would not exist if it wasn't for the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, and their willingness to assume that things are worse elsewhere than under whatever government they are subject to, or to not overthrow the ruling order.

As society is builty by voluntary interaction then it is illogical for society to place but all the loosest constraints on human behavior. These contraints have typically been property rights that protect an individual's life, liberty and property.

Beyond that why do I need any thing else.

As Obama states the Constitution is "Negative" rights, but not for us. It restricts our government while leaving us free to do anything not prohibited to us by the Constitution.

Why would we need a government obligated to do anything. Government can not give that which it has not stolen to begin with, and in that case it is no longer a society, by a tyrannical dictatorship where one group constituted of the thieves and their supportes steals from the other group constituted of their victims.

While I might voluntarily choose to prevent a neighbor from starving that neighbor does not have the right to steal my food either directly or through a third party.

Law dictates that to hire some one to commission a crime means that you are just as guilty, if not guiltier, than they are.

Whether you hire an assassin to commit murder, or a thief to commit theft you are still guilty of those crimes. Not being directly involved in the crime does not wash one of moral responsibility for that crime.

deiseldawg said:

The long and short of it is, in my opinion, If history has shown us anything about government and the way people naturally co-habitate, is that free will has, and will always be the kink in the chain of a smooth running system. There will always be selfishness, greed, and deceit. History also has shown us that every system that has been created to quell this problem, by itself has been has been ineffective eventually due to the degradation of societies will and willingness of one greedy headstrong entity to take over, become extinct. To be successful one has to look past the bounds of any one particular system and take fassets of all systems, hybridized government if you will. Countrys need to learn to co-exisist with each other without depending on one another, be more self sufficient and become respected for their innovations in creating and preserving things we all need, not feared for what they have the capacity to do to us if we do not yeild. The goal is to be one united front as a people to conquer obsticales, not to put on a front to impose fear in those who have the easy answer.

Click to expand...

I also agree with most of your post. There needs to be some form of government to impose rules on the greedy and make sure that the society functions under rules of law, laws that are fair to everyone. I don't advocate stifiling free market entrapreneurs, but regulating the greed of their accomplishments may be helpful to run a fair and balanced society.

TheBrutalTruth said:

What, are you arguing that I would not be free to work for some one else if that is what I wished?

Are you arguing that under your society I would be EVEN LESS FREE THAN I AM NOW?

Then you sir, are nothing more than a Socialist Piece of shit, do not ruin Anarchy by stating that it would be a collective.

Anarchy - With out leader, or with out government.

Your Anarcho-Socialism/Anarcho-Syndicalism is bullshit that fails to account that if people are truly free then they will be able to do whatever they want, organize however they want, and thus you will see a wide range of organizations ranging from Entrepreneurship, through varying forms of Partnerships to Corporations.

Your lack of critical thinking is exposed by your fallacious views, you sir are nothing more than a socialist.

Click to expand...

I don't know where your first two questions arise from.

It's without rulers. It's both an economic and governmental philosophy, not purely governmental as you suggest. You wouldn't know because you don't understand a fucking thing about anarchism. Guess what, its history didn't begin with Rothbard.

I'm a piece of shit, huh? You're a fucking moron that has no historical grounding in anarchism or its concepts. According to your line of thought the first anarchists, Godwin and Proudhon, weren't anarchists at all, correct? Are you going to erase several hundred years of anarchist thought at the drop of a hat because you'd like to adopt that term to fit your beliefs? All anarchists are socialists! Only an imbecile would suggest otherwise. It's comparable to someone trying to change the terms classical liberalism or Keynesian. They've already been established and defined.

john.roberts85 said:

I don't know where your first two questions arise from.

It's without rulers. It's both an economic and governmental philosophy, not purely governmental as you suggest. You wouldn't know because you don't understand a fucking thing about anarchism. Guess what, its history didn't begin with Rothbard.

I'm a piece of shit, huh? You're a fucking moron that has no historical grounding in anarchism or its concepts. According to your line of thought the first anarchists, Godwin and Proudhon, weren't anarchists at all, correct? Are you going to erase several hundred years of anarchist thought at the drop of a hat because you'd like to adopt that term to fit your beliefs? All anarchists are socialists! Only an imbecile would suggest otherwise. It's comparable to someone trying to change the terms classical liberalism or Keynesian. They've already been established and defined.

Click to expand...

Anarchy - With a ruler implies sovereignty of the individual

Socialism - implies sovereignty of "society"

They are two very different things. While Socialism preaches that at some point they will reach a mythical free state where they are anarchos there has yet to be a Socialist state that has actually reached the point of anarchos.

Thus Socialism is not the same as anarchy.

When Socialism some how manages to magically transform itself into that final state of Anarchos then perhaps you can argue that they are indeed the same.

Arguing that from a historical perspective that they are the same doesn't expose my ignorance, because I am quite familiar with the arguments made by Proudhon, Bukunin, Engels and Marx, it exposes your failure to actually look at the data instead of the theory and realize that the theory is flawed.

Socialism and Anarchy are two very different things, in that Socialism will never reach a state where there is no one "guarding the revolution", because those people that seize the power over their fellow man are not going to give up that power.

So not only are you incapable of critical thinking, but you are ignorant of history.

Socialism has never lead to Anarchy.

Anarchy is not Socialism or Communism, in that Socialism and Communism in the REAL WORLD have been stuck with having imbecilic children like you insisting that people must live by some artificial strictures that violate the idea of a completely voluntary society.

You not only are a Socialist, but you are, what was that simple idiotic phrase that you used, oh yes, you are an IMBECILE.

You are stating that it is some how magically possible to go from massive amounts of government interference in society to none. Easier to empty all the oceans of water than actually pull that one off.

KaliKitsune said:

"SLOTH=TREE DWELLER=Needs claws to live in the trees so it doesnt get eaten."

That's the lamest attempt at turning around a point I've ever seen. You stated:

Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws

as if it were an ABSOLUTE FACT. It is not. Koala = herbivore = has claws.

By the way, I saw where you got that source from. I typed in herbivores with claws and the first two links give me you're little quote there plus some other hilarious ignorant bullshit. Here, let me show you some of it:

"Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue Herbivores: perspire through skin pores Humans: perspire through skin pores"

Meat eaters, like cats and dogs, perspire through pores on the nose and ears, which is also SKIN. You sir, have been busted.

http://www.google.com/search?q=herbivores+with+claws&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I like how they all repeat themselves and reference each other, but never a scientific study to back up their claims. They even copy and paste each other and just slap it on their blogs.

Anything you say is not to be taken seriously, from now on. You are uneducated. You rely upon non-credible sources that do not cite real peer-reviewed material.

Um, yes. I study everything. I'm a slashdotter it's practically my fucking job description. All I do is read educational journals and tech manuals and articles all day long, I'm like fucking Scotty from Star Trek. You want to try getting into anthropology, here's a lesson for ya. Our fingernails are there PRECISELY to support pressure upon our fingers, to help us grip things.

" A nail that is big enough to bear weight is called a ‘HOOF.’"

Do you know the difference between digitgrade and plantigrade walking? Quite a bit of weight in a cat is supported on the claws when it walks, with a bit going to the toepads for a little extra surface area to keep stable. We don't call a cat's claws hooves even though it does end up supporting the majority of a cat's weight while the cat is in motion.

"But hey, if you want to kill life when you dont have too, and kill yourself along the way, nice and slowly till your fatt ass has a heart-attack when your 50, be my guest."

Wow, yet another unfactual statement with more opinion and spite in it than information. Besides having metal in my body from an accident, my physique couldn't be any better. See, I exercise as well. I have one compact muscle structure attached to a six foot tal frame. The only downside of being an ectomorph is I have to work in order to build large muscles, but my natural muscle system is in great condition without ever needing to work out. I maintain about 2.5% body fat. I *TRY* to gain weight and I can't, which is a bitch due to my right leg having some atrophy from my accident two years ago.

I don't see how you've learned your way since you graduated high school. I don't think you actually graduated, you just got a GED.

Click to expand...

Look dude, whatever makes you feel better at night... haha so what you say is law, and everyone should belive you... haha all mighty that knows everything... your still a fucking idot by saying shit you have no idea on about me. So have fun, being a fucking dick, but just know this vegetarian is just fine, along with the millions of others. That fact still remains that there is no reason to kill life, when you could survive just fine not murdering living things. I just hope when I'm your age, i wont be such a dick...

Well Instead of assuming we can refrain from natural tendancies.
Why not accept the fact that these tendancies exist,
and use a system that accomidates for these natural tendancies.
Your always going to have meat eaters,
your always going to have greed
and you will always have envy.
Its human nature, you can't outlaw it.

Instead of trying to make man into your vision
try making your vision around man.
Because IRL I loves me some fried chicken and T-Bones.
I don't give a shit what you say I will NEVER stop eating meat.

What are you gonna do about it?
You gonna throw me in the re-education booth?

LOL Murder.

DEATH IS A FACT OF LIFE.

"your still a fucking idot by saying shit you have no idea on about me."

Considering you said "nice and slowly till your fatt ass has a heart-attack" you have absolutely no room to talk.

Nothing I say is law, what I observe is NATURE'S LAW.

You're just mad because I can disprove just about anything you say, and any thing you say has no verifiable scientific sources behind it. Let's break down more of these lies:

Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

This is incorrect. See, I have canines. I also have sharp incisors. They DO draw blood when I bite.

Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

24 feet is NOT 10-12 times my body height of six feet, that is FOUR times. Learn math and basic human anatomy.

Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

No, we produce hydrochloric acid as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastric_acid Note how it says the main composition is Hydrochloric acid. This again, was basic human anatomy, high-school level. We're more specialized and thus there are there enzymes and catalysts that we produce to make food decay in our bodies faster so we can process it when it passes through the small intestine.

Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits.

Yea, you tell that to the herbivorous birds that have to eat rocks to aid in digestion of plant matter.

Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

So I just spit in a clean liquid pH testing tube and added test indicator - the pH of my saliva is between 6.0-6.5. I used a pool alkalinity testing kit on my saliva again (new sample) and the alkalinity is below 50. Regular tap water usually reads about 300.



Go figure you're quoting something from almost 40 years ago. 1970? Lame.

so answer me this, if it is so wrong, and unhealthy... why do so many people make the conscious decision to never eat meat and never have problems? Like just to name a few that just might be smarter than kalikitsune, Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Princess Diana, Teresa Hsu, Buddha, Aung San Suu Kyi, Cesar Chavez, Jane Goodall, Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, Pythagoras, Leonardo Da Vinci, Socrates, Darwin, Plato, Isaac Newton, Ben Franklin, Thomas Edison, Thoreau fuck even charles manson was smarter than you and become vegetarian. haha and no I dont get mad about internet nerds twisting things around to make themselves sound better.... haha so this bong rips for you duder!

Who says I'm trying to make myself sound better? Way to assume things.

Umm, Albert einstein? Try again. Einstein was a vegetarian during the last year of his life, although he had supported the idea for a long time. In a letter to Max Kariel he said, "I have always eaten animal flesh with a somewhat guilty conscience," and soon after became a vegetarian. That right from what is likely one of your fave vegan sites - happycow.

Tesla? In his later years Tesla became a vegetarian. In an article for Century Illustrated Magazine he wrote: "It is certainly preferable to raise vegetables, and I think, therefore, that vegetarianism is a commendable departure from the established barbarous habit." Tesla argued that it is wrong to eat uneconomic meat when large numbers of people are starving.

Pythagoras was a nutcase that made a religion around the idea that beans were unfit for mankind. We know that to be patently false. "And it is said that Zaratas forbade men to eat beans because he said that at the beginning and composition of all things when the earth was still a whole, the bean arose. And he says that the proof of this is that if one chews a bean to a pulp and exposes it to the sun for a certain time (for the sun will affect it quickly), it gives out the odour of human seed. And he says that there is another and clearer proof: if when a bean is in flower we were to take the bean and its flower, and putting it into a pitcher moisten it and then bury it in the earth, and after a few days dig it up again, we should see in the first place that it had the form of a womb, and examining it closely we should find the head of a child growing with it. " Ummm yea.

well... your quite arrogant smart guy, I'll give you that. what about the 70%+ population of india? whats your spin on their reasoning's?

India?

More than half the child population is malnourished. 60% of the women are aenemic.

In fact, India’s high incidence of child malnutrition is part of a wider regional anomaly.
Fifty percent of children across South Asia continue to suffer from malnutrition,
compared to thirty-three percent of children in sub-Saharan Africa. The gap exists
despite much higher levels of per capita national income, education and safe water
access in South Asia than in sub-Saharan Africa.

That answer your question?

Also, cows in India are SACRED. They do eat goats and chickens. In fact, Tandoori chicken is a national dish.

Oh, and being smart comes with the stigma of sounding arrogant. Smart people realize this and don't say anything about it.

wow, and again i love all these facts with no proof. And you don't think them being malnourished has nothing to do with any other factors of the country? It has to be because they don't eat meat huh bill nye.

The proof can be found directly from UNICEF, but then again educated people would know where to check online to verify a source.

I think I'll inject a comment or two. This thread is a great example of the problems within our species. I want all of you to read back over this thread pause & think. The answer to the thread can simply be found by reading it. You all should spend less time with the childish arguments & live your life in my opinion. It'll be over before you know it. Do what YOU want to do, don't let anyone tell you what you can & can't do, that 's what being free is all about.

Dfunk said:

I think I'll inject a comment or two. This thread is a great example of the problems within our species. I want all of you to read back over this thread pause & think. The answer to the thread can simply be found by reading it. You all should spend less time with the childish arguments & live your life in my opinion. It'll be over before you know it. Do what YOU want to do, don't let anyone tell you what you can & can't do, that 's what being free is all about.

Click to expand...

Dfunk, I'm going to extend your thoughts a bit.

Instead of focusing on living their own lives, people should focus on not trying to dictate how others must live their's. Which is the basic idea of Anarchy in a nut shell. That the individual is sovereign except where the actions of an individual would interfere in the sovereignty of another individual.

In short everyone is free to do what they want, how they want it and in whatever organization they want as long as they do not interfere in the rights of other people.

Which is the entire argument at this point.

I could care less whether or not some one is a vegetarian, but when they make claims that it is healthier, or even worse, morally superior they are trying to dictate to others why they are vegetarians.

If they feel the need to justify themselves and their choices to others so strongly, perhaps they should rethink their entire position...

But the bottom line is that people should not try to dictate to others how to live their life.

And the best example of that is a Anarcho-Capitalist or Minarchist (Night Watch Government) Society where there are no strictures on how people can organize, whether it is employee owned co-operatives (which are typically registered as corporations) or sole proprietorships of sufficient size that the owner has incorporated.

While the Fortune 500 does have an inordinate amount of leverage in our government the solution to that problem is two fold.

1. Sherman Anti-Trust - If they are too big to fail then they are to big to be managed effectively and in the interest of the public (as can be witnessed by their interests directly conflicting with the public's interest not to be bent over and raped by corrupt politicians who accept bribes, err campaign contributions, from them.

2. Reduce Government Power - It isn't just sufficient to reduce the size of the corporations by dividing them up. This would allow for their competitors to then take their place as nature abhors a vacuum. In addition to stripping the corporations of their size the next step is to make it so that there is no motivation for them to try influencing government by muzzling government.

Those are the only two ways that will actually work. The third way that the politicians and socialists talk about which is nationalizing the corporations will not work, because it does not actually solve the problem of them having a disproportionate amount of influence in government policy decisions.

This can be seen by the examples that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac gave us, where because of their status as government protected enterprises they were able to avoid the kind of scrutiny that would have been focused on them had they been just normal public corporations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802111.html
Fannie Mae by itself had a quarter of the market for mortgages by the end of 2006, a market that was dominated by Ninja loans, 2/28 and I/O Mortgages. In a market where the assets being flung around represent a massive amount of the country's wealth for any corporation to control a quarter of it is absurd.

The government, due to its acceptance of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae (which is a Private Corporation http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-credit-crisis.asp ) ignored the signs that Fannie Mae was in a dominant market position where its competitors were being forced to engage in risky practices (those I/O, 2/28, and NINJA Loans.)

To make matters worse, due to its status as a GSE (Government Supported Monopoly) it was given false credit ratings by Moodys, S&P and other rating agencies for its junk mortgages which allowed other banks to get the same false credit ratings for their equally worthless junk mortgage assets.

In short the saga of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac show that Government Sponsorship of an Enterprise distorts the market with disastrous effects, and thus the third option thrown out there by Socialists can be shown to not be a viable option.

TheBrutalTruth said:

Dfunk, I'm going to extend your thoughts a bit.



I could care less whether or not some one is a vegetarian, but when they make claims that it is healthier, or even worse, morally superior they are trying to dictate to others why they are vegetarians.

Click to expand...

Let me go back, I stated that we as a species should restrain from greed, as a vegetarian refrains from eating meat. Then all of a sudden dude was like, thats a slap in mother natures face, and I am wrong. Thats what started the whole thing. I stared this thread to hopefully meet some others alike, which then we could discuss our lives and how we try to live more positive, than your normal drone of society. How we question everything, cause everything is supposed to be questioned. Instead I got a bunch of dicks attacking my thoughts, thinking theirs is better for everyone. Its rather annoying that people on here, a website made to broaden your marijuana horticulture, have to go around, trying to tell people they are wrong. I hope everyone decides for themselves whats best... but dont fucking tell me what is healthier for me, being that I have tried both for years, and have chosen what is healthier for me. So dont pretend that I started this shit, I just defended myself when my thoughts were attacked, with what I have experienced, what my nutritionist has taught me, and countless websites, most with reliable sources. Now, can everyone who wants to bitch about things go to twitter or myspace, and keep the vibes on here positive... your flossing my style. haha

"Anarchy, Equality, Peace and solidarity, thats all we really need."
~Jesse Smock
(Side FX)

Healthy was just one reason why I turned vegetarian. I just couldnt live with myself anymore, knowing that I was eating something that had a life. Nor did I want to support factory farms that are killing our earth. And unless you hunt all your food, or buy from your local farmer, 100% of the time, you too are supporting the destruction of the earth. But let me put this so everyone knows, this is just my thoughts, so disagree or agree... either way, smoke some more weed and move the fuck on! haha

Musical Suicide said:

Healthy was just one reason why I turned vegetarian. I just couldnt live with myself anymore, knowing that I was eating something that had a life. Nor did I want to support factory farms that are killing our earth. And unless you hunt all your food, or buy from your local farmer, 100% of the time, you too are supporting the destruction of the earth. But let me put this so everyone knows, this is just my thoughts, so disagree or agree... either way, smoke some more weed and move the fuck on! haha

Click to expand...

Earth can not be destroyed...

and if you're talking about climate change save your breath, the Earth is on its third or fourth atmosphere since its creation, and they have ranged to heavily acidic (Venus) to heavily carbonic with just trace amounts of oxygen.

The only unnatural thing would be for Earth to stagnate. Of course if it did it would likely be because everything was dead.

Despite minute (relative to the entire atmosphere) increases in CO2 it is likely that in the long run this will lead to increased growth of plant-life.

Global Warming increases growing periods which increases yields (which is a forcing factor on CO2.)

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Government regulation is essentially an idiotic response to a problem that is not. Increased Carbon Dioxide means increased plant life, and last time I checked there was a distinct problem with the diets of nearly 2 Billion of Earth's population. A problem that could be potentially solved by increased growing seasons, and increased crop yields. At the very least the increased CO2 means that it may be possible to decrease our dependence on fertilizers.

Perhaps, I'm not saying that this is the case merely that it is possible, it should be investigated into whether or not Industry has been dragging its heels on paying attention to global warming in a kind of massive reverse psychology to get people to believe that it is "bad" when in fact it is ultimately good, unless you are a giant agro-chemical firm.

For the Western Hemisphere to act in a unilateral fashion is the typical idiotic hubris of humanity. Only instead of just interfering in the lives of their citizens the actions being contemplated now have effects outside of any one nation's borders.

The short of it is that the Earth will destroy us, before we destroy the Earth.