Any Anarchists Out There?

[Dalton_Holt]

Simple question. Just looking for like minded individuals out there on VT.

[Vlerchan]

We've had some in the past but at the moment there's none active. You'll notice at the moment the place is composed of mostly rightists.

I do sympathise quite an amount with anarchists though.

[phuckphace]

you have been visited by the Statist of Social Stability! prosperity and happiness will come to you, but ONLY if you post "heil phuckphace" ITT

[Judean Zealot]

Vive l'etat!

[Kahn]

I'd identify as independent. Socially liberal, fiscally consevative (for what it's worth I don't have the greatest understanding of economics). Very much center of the road.

[phuckphace]

I'd identify as independent. Socially liberal, fiscally consevative (for what it's worth I don't have the greatest understanding of economics). Very much center of the road.

oh hey, I had you pegged as a centrist. *impressed with myself*

[Kahn]

oh hey, I had you pegged as a centrist. *impressed with myself*

I'm of the opinion that Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Madison, and other giants of that era would be revolted by the way our government and political system operates, currently. Save Alexander Hamilton, maybe.

[Porpoise101]

I believe that if need be, the populus may rise up and destroy the unjust establishments. But there needs to be reason and consensus involved. I don't know if it is anarchism, but to me anarchy seems unsafe considering malevolent outside forces.

[Dalton_Holt]

I'd identify as independent. Socially liberal, fiscally consevative (for what it's worth I don't have the greatest understanding of economics). Very much center of the road.

That's called libertarian. You believe in equality and limited government.

[Judean Zealot]

I'd identify as independent. Socially liberal, fiscally consevative (for what it's worth I don't have the greatest understanding of economics). Very much center of the road.

Which makes me wonder why I get likes on my socially conservative and fiscally liberal posts. :P

[Kahn]

Which makes me wonder why I get likes on my socially conservative and fiscally liberal posts. :P

I'm not on board with the egregious, overbearing social justice side of social liberalism. Liberty, our natural rights, freedom, are what I value. I know there needs to be structure, though. Sacrificing our civil and political liberties in the name of security is one side of liberalism I strongly disagree with.

I really can't say for certain where I stand fiscally. I'm ignorant.

[Porpoise101]

I'm not on board with the egregious, overbearing social justice side of social liberalism. Liberty, our natural rights, freedom, are what I value. I know there needs to be structure, though. Sacrificing our civil and political liberties in the name of security is one side of liberalism I strongly disagree with.

I really can't say for certain where I stand fiscally. I'm ignorant.

I guess I stand with you except I believe for some things like basic security (a local police force for example), public health (compulsory vaccinations), and some environmental issues like air and water pollution individual rights don't take precedence over the common good or things that we share. I don't believe in excessive security and the silencing of people. Fiscally liberal though.

[Vlerchan]

Which makes me wonder why I get likes on my socially conservative and fiscally liberal posts. :P
I also find I agree with an awful lot of what you say, or at least nod along with it.

I'm broadly socially liberal and economically centred (New Keynesian - preference for market socialism).

I really can't say for certain where I stand fiscally. I'm ignorant.
I made this thread (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=228430) a while ago to discuss queries relating to economics and post about interesting research - which I never did.

Feel free to revive it.

[phuckphace]

I'm of the opinion that Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Madison, and other giants of that era would be revolted by the way our government and political system operates, currently. Save Alexander Hamilton, maybe.

I'd take it a step further and guess that most politicians from as recently as ~80 years ago would react this way.

Donald Trump and Rand Paul would just be your average Republicans back when the Titanic was afloat.

[Porpoise101]

I'd take it a step further and guess that most politicians from as recently as ~80 years ago would react this way.

Donald Trump and Rand Paul would just be your average Republicans back when the Titanic was afloat.
Ehh the gilded age had the same slimy people. It just cycles over time. Eventually you'll get your populist, anti corruption crew into Congress. It just takes a little while.

[phuckphace]

I'd take Carnegie over Soros but I see your point

[sqishy]

I am open to anarchism and related ideas; not one as such, and I don't know loads about it, but yes.

[Judean Zealot]

I am open to anarchism and related ideas; not one as such, and I don't know loads about it, but yes.

You like anarchy as an impossible ideal (as does Vlerchan, I believe), or as a proper goal to pursue?

[sqishy]

You like anarchy as an impossible ideal (as does Vlerchan, I believe), or as a proper goal to pursue?

I don't intend in liking impossible ideals, instead possible things which can be reached in some way. I'm not absolute with anarchism, I'm only open to it, as in not rejecting it (yet, if ever).

[lliam]

If anarchism means the negation of all forms of hierarchy, mastership, etc .... I feel like I'm probably too anarchic to call myself an anarchist. So, I'm out.

[james wolf]

If anarchism means the negation of all forms of hierarchy, mastership, etc .... I feel like I'm probably too anarchic to call myself an anarchist. So, I'm out.

Not necessarily... in an Anarcho-Liberal society there would still be mastership in the dynamic of capitalism IE. Boss oversee workers.

Anarchism only means the rejection of the state. There are many different types of Anarchism, broadly though, there are 2 major strands:

As I've mentioned, Anarcho-Liberalism. This is where people continue to own private property and operate in a capitalist economic system, just without the state. They tend to see the market as a replacement of the state, as the market will be able to provide roads, emergency services etc.

The other strand is Anarcho-Communism. This is where societies get into small collectives. The societies would be characterised by common ownership and common enterprise; people would work together and share the fruits of each others' labour. (As an aside, Anarcho-Communism is actually the ultimate end goal of Marxism... Anarchists, however, believe that it can only be achieved through revolution whereas Marxists believe you can use the state to reach this utopia.)

[phuckphace]

the logical conclusion to anarchism in any form is corporate serfdom

[lliam]

I think anarchism is genetically predetermined. If I understood neurologists correctly (watched a docu lately), our brain works similar to this anarcho-theory.

Anyway, transferred to a form of society that give me the creeps. Cause this would mean the abandonment of any individuality. And I like to be a grain of sand in the gears of a system so much.

[Dalton_Holt]

Not necessarily... in an Anarcho-Liberal society there would still be mastership in the dynamic of capitalism IE. Boss oversee workers.

Anarchism only means the rejection of the state. There are many different types of Anarchism, broadly though, there are 2 major strands:

As I've mentioned, Anarcho-Liberalism. This is where people continue to own private property and operate in a capitalist economic system, just without the state. They tend to see the market as a replacement of the state, as the market will be able to provide roads, emergency services etc.

The other strand is Anarcho-Communism. This is where societies get into small collectives. The societies would be characterised by common ownership and common enterprise; people would work together and share the fruits of each others' labour. (As an aside, Anarcho-Communism is actually the ultimate end goal of Marxism... Anarchists, however, believe that it can only be achieved through revolution whereas Marxists believe you can use the state to reach this utopia.)

I think by anarcho liberalism you meant anarcho capitalism. I've never even heard of anarcho liberalism. Also anarcho communism doesn't have to be in small collectives, in fact most communists I know seem to want a communist NWO. There are also far more versions of anarchism than just those two. Anarcho mutualism, syndicalism, primitivism, transhumanism, individualism, and more.

In reality, it's never going to be as simple as a NWO of a specific sub ideology, not with anarchism. The only way anarchy can exist is if it's completely global, but you won't have one particular version of anarchism being global. Otherwise, there would be war between which would become the global principal, and if one does become so, it will eliminate the existence of political free choice. Thus, no longer reflecting the ideals of "anarchy."

Instead there would be collectives, some capitalist, some communist, some mutualist, etc. You can leave one at anytime and move to any other. Some ideological systems will inevitably be inferior to others, and thus will not be favorable, dissipating as people move to better systems. Society will go with the flow, if you disrupt this flow you will defy basic anarchist principles. Resulting in war, loss of political choice, and possibly the reforming of a state. The only exception is if states do emerge, which inevitably would happen, in which case you must destroy them before they become too powerful.

[phuckphace]

Dalton_Holt - what if a given collective wants a state, isn't that political free will as well?

it's not really "free will" if there's an unspoken ultimatum of "you can have any arrangement you want as long as it's stateless anarchy"

[Dalton_Holt]

Dalton_Holt - what if a given collective wants a state, isn't that political free will as well?

it's not really "free will" if there's an unspoken ultimatum of "you can have any arrangement you want as long as it's stateless anarchy"

Well, a government wouldn't let anarchy exist, so it goes both ways.

If a state emerges and the people don't oppose it, then that state will rise, there's no authority to shut down. Which, if that happens, may be the end of what we fought to create.

[tovaris]

Dalton_Holt Nop just a commie.

I'd identify as independent. Socially liberal, fiscally consevative (for what it's worth I don't have the greatest understanding of economics). Very much center of the road.

nobody likes centrists, either you are left od you are right. dont be a pussy and chose

I believe that if need be, the populus may rise up and destroy the unjust establishments. But there needs to be reason and consensus involved. I don't know if it is anarchism, but to me anarchy seems unsafe considering malevolent outside forces.

Relx, anarchy isn't something that happens over night, its something the society gradually works itself into frev generations of communism

[Kahn]

Dalton_Holt Nop just a commie.

nobody likes centrists, either you are left od you are right. dont be a pussy and chose

Fuck off.

[Vlerchan]

People choose the centre-field because it avoids the excesses thought to come with a firm left or right stance. It is a position in itself.

Though Oakheart is mostly correct.

[tovaris]

Fuck off.

Oh come on, don't be so hostile, you yourself aligned yourself with fog (http://www.strankasmc.si/), such hostility should not be on your agenda.

People choose the centre-field because it avoids the excesses thought to come with a firm left or right stance. It is a position in itself.

Though Oakheart is mostly correct.

People choose the centre-field because it avoids the excesses thought to come with a firm left or right stance.
/.../*

People chose to say they are centrist, because they are either to lazy to make an opinion of their own and than see where it fits, or because they are apatical and apolitical and don't want basically anything. Center is no position, for left and right are divided by a geometrical line (no width) and one cannot place themselves on something infernally narrow.

*I quoted you twice because you put it wery nicely

[Vlerchan]

People chose to say they are centrist, because they are either to lazy to make an opinion of their own and than see where it fits, or because they are apatical and apolitical and don't want basically anything.
That does sound like me in a nutshell.

Center is no position, for left and right are divided by a geometrical line (no width) and one cannot place themselves on something infernally narrow.
I have. So have a lot of people. There's no historical basis to conclude that centrism doesn't exist at all.

[Kahn]

Oh come on, don't be so hostile,

Don't be a pussy, Slav.

you yourself aligned yourself with fog (http://www.strankasmc.si/), such hostility should not be on your agenda.

I'm not familiar with the politics of Slovenia, and the Google translation is awful. What is "fog?"

[tovaris]

That does sound like me in a nutshell. /.../


I wasn't talking about you

/.../
I have. So have a lot of people. /.../

Next you are going to tell me that a point has a circumference.

/.../
There's no historical basis to conclude that centrism doesn't exist at all.

There is no historic basis to conclude centrism exists.

Don't be a pussy, /...

Regarding?

/.../Slav.
/.../

Do you really want to go down this road?

/.../
I'm not familiar with the politics of Slovenia, and the Google translation is awful. What is "fog?"

Fog
[MASS NOUN] A thick cloud of tiny water droplets suspended in the atmosphere at or near the earth’s surface which obscures or restricts visibility (to a greater extent than mist; strictly, reducing visibility to below 1 km):
the collision occurred in thick fog (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fog)

[Vlerchan]

I'm not familiar with the politics of Slovenia, and the Google translation is awful. What is "fog?"
It refers to the Modern Centre Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Centre_Party) in Slovenia it seems.

That's a historical example of centrists and they lead the current governing coalition in Slovenia.

I wasn't talking about you
I'm a centrist. It's the reason I responded in the first place.

Next you are going to tell me that a point has a circumference.
I genuinely find it baffling that you can be opposed to the existence of a political centre.

There is no historic basis to conclude centrism exists.
Except the large number of people that have referred to themselves as centrists.

---

But sure whatever. This topic isn't important enough that I'm willing to spend my evening convincing you about it.

I'm going to stop responding on the subject here.

[tovaris]

I'm a centrist. It's the reason I responded in the first place.
/.../

Whell it is my opinion you are either as described or not a centrist, even the slightest deviation to one side or the other will be enough to convict.

/.../
I genuinely find it baffling that you can be opposed to the existence of a political centre.
/.../

Center, singe issue politics, they are all the same, useless. I prefers fascists, an enemy who clearly states they are hostile and what they want is better than a neutral you cannot trust.

/../
Except the large number of people that have referred to themselves as centrists.
/.../

Who Miro Cerar?

/../

But sure whatever. This topic isn't important enough that I'm willing to spend my evening convincing you about it.

I'm going to stop responding on the subject here.

But why, we are having such a jolly good conversation about it... It would be a shame to have you leave. Granted its a bit of topic, but its a interesting conversation to have non the less.

[Judean Zealot]

tovaris

What if I am rightist on some issues and leftist on others? I cannot be truly described as either rightist or leftist, ergo the designation 'centrist'.

[Vlerchan]

Granted its a bit of topic, but its a interesting conversation to have non the less.
The problem is that we're just defining what we want into our arguments.

There's no means of convincing the other that our understanding of the term is correct.

I cannot be truly described as either rightist or leftist, ergo the designation 'centrist'.
How close would you be described to a sort-of Sternism?

That's a real nasty name for an ideology though.

[tovaris]

tovaris

What if I am rightist on some issues and leftist on others? I cannot be truly described as either rightist or leftist, ergo the designation 'centrist'.

Usualy we use a square (https://www.politicalcompass.org/test) to map political beliefs of a person. And a squares center is a point, which has no surfice (basic geometrics man) you cannot stand on something eith no surfice is what i argue. I have explaned (up) who in my mind centrist are.

The problem is that we're just defining what we want into our arguments.
/.../


Huh?


There's no means of convincing the other that our understanding of the term is correct.


Sure there is, thats art of the fun. But why are you so dam set on this centrist thing, you obviously have leftist vievs on society from ehat i remember

[Kahn]

Regarding?

You initiated a conversation with hostility. You should expect hostility in return.


Fog
[MASS NOUN] A thick cloud of tiny water droplets suspended in the atmosphere at or near the earth’s surface which obscures or restricts visibility (to a greater extent than mist; strictly, reducing visibility to below 1 km):
the collision occurred in thick fog (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fog)

Cute.

http://i64.tinypic.com/33vzviq.jpg

It refers to the Modern Centre Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Centre_Party) in Slovenia it seems.

That's a historical example of centrists and they lead the current governing coalition in Slovenia.

Thanks, Vlerchan.

[tovaris]

You initiated a conversation with hostility. You should expect hostility in return.
/.../
.

Yes but centrists are not supozed to reac, centistas are indifferent.

/.../
Thanks, Vlerchan.

Vlerchan

Historic... hardly they were created before the last election and used to be called The Party of Miro Cerar. The perfect party with 0 ideology an 0 idea how to fun a country. I mean you would have read the wiki you linked

[Kahn]

Yes but centrists are not supozed to reac, centistas are indifferent.

You seem to think you know how everybody should think, act, and feel. You are wrong.

[tovaris]

You seem to think you know how everybody should think, act, and feel. You are wrong.

Centrist... by definition of the opinion of neither side. Therofe neutral, indifferent. Jeesh dawm angloamericans

[Vlerchan]

Centrist refers to an amalgamation of views from the left and right along the lines of believed-pragmatism. To hold a centrist position requires one is familiar with both sides of the debate - a stance that requires a lot more than indifference.

I also don't think I'm left-wing.

[Kahn]

Centrist... by definition of the opinion of neither side. Therofe neutral, indifferent. Jeesh dawm angloamericans

Alright, slav, whatever you say. I'll play the part, for the sake of your sanity.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/photographs/95-48-35.jpg

[tovaris]

Alright, slav, whatever you say. I'll play the part, for the sake of your sanity.

image (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/photographs/95-48-35.jpg)

This is getting way to of topic i will start a new thread so not to spam this poor anarhist.

[Kahn]

This is getting way to :oftopic: i will start a new thread so not to spam this poor anarhist.

Come on thug, can't handle the bantz?

[tovaris]

Come on thug, can't handle the bantz?

If this was some other platform like g+ or yt or fb i would gladly engage your angloamerican delusions and school you in the superiorety of the slavan race. Buut since this is VT and this is ROTW, i will simply dirrct your atention to the thread i made espacely for your centrist delusions.

[Kahn]

If this was some other platform like g+ or yt or fb i would gladly engage your angloamerican delusions and school you in the superiorety of the slavan race. Buut since this is VT and this is ROTW, i will simply dirrct your atention to the thread i made espacely for your centrist delusions.

Hey, you're the one telling me how to think and act, despite being wrong. I'd say thats pretty delusional.

I'm really interested in hearing about the "superiority" of the Slavic race.

Ad hominem, ad hominem, my slavish friend.

[tovaris]

Hey, you're the one telling me how to think and act, despite being wrong. I'd say thats pretty delusional.

I'm really interested in hearing about the "superiority" of the Slavic race.

Ad hominem, ad hominem, my slavish friend.

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2024393

[phuckphace]

Well, a government wouldn't let anarchy exist, so it goes both ways.

If a state emerges and the people don't oppose it, then that state will rise, there's no authority to shut down. Which, if that happens, may be the end of what we fought to create.

speaking for myself, if I were führer of the US and some other country decided to roll out collectivist anarchy I wouldn't try to topple it or care really

I'd rather it stay out of my country though, for several reasons.

[Miserabilia]

Maybe it's just me but isn't anarchism pretty much retarded. Yes let's completely destroy everything that keeps us and the giant population of earth alive in relative peace. Just because I don't think the way things are now are absolutely perfect to me.
Maybe I'm missing something but that is the view I've gotten from anarchists.

[Dalton_Holt]

Maybe it's just me but isn't anarchism pretty much retarded. Yes let's completely destroy everything that keeps us and the giant population of earth alive in relative peace. Just because I don't think the way things are now are absolutely perfect to me.
Maybe I'm missing something but that is the view I've gotten from anarchists.

Hasn't every war in history been between governments? Hasn't every example of oppression in history been imposed by a government? Considering that we certainly are not in peace, and these power hungry politicians are creating war throughout the world, I don't see how you can say the state creates peace. How anarchy would create war.

[Miserabilia]

Hasn't every war in history been between governments? Hasn't every example of oppression in history been imposed by a government? .

That's the thing though, there's no such thing as "the " government, the government is a complex organ with infinitely many levels down to ordinairy people, you are a part of the government because you live in a democracy and you can vote.
yes there are parts in modern democrocies that don't work as they should or are corrupt, and certain people stay in the same powerful position for too long, but overall corporations are far more guilty of this than people in the government, unless you include people in the governent working for or being funded by powerful corporations.

As for the wars throughout history etc thing, wars have existed always and everywhere on any government of any scale. Larger government don't cause larger wars, it's that society grows larger, requires more government and wars also grow because there are more people and people are more interconnected and their ideas are more globalized and accesable, this causes greater conflicts than the small conflicts in very early history.

Even then, there have been many times and places where a "goverment" merely consisted of rich land owners, still war was created. Times where people were ruled by rich citicens, there was war and conflict.
It's always there, removing a government wouldn't cause peace, it would cause anarchy, as the name anarchist suggests.

We can't sustain 7 bilion people on anarchy, but a lot anarchist are too edgy and will respond with someting along the lines of there are too many people anyway.

The government isn't just sitting there being "power hungry" and starting wars, the government is a central organ in society, also responsible for the roads you drive on and most of the food you eat.

Would you otherwise suggest we privatize everything? In that case you'll have the world run on organisations.
Even if the government is corrupt and power hungry, I'd rather be controlled for political greed than for money.
A world ruled by corporations will not be a better place than a world ruled by democratic governments.

How anarchy would create war.

I'm not saying it will create war, I'm saying it will create anarchy. Meaning every conflict will be freely released, endless civil war, revenge killings, you name it.

[phuckphace]

war is escalated conflict between people. it's absurd to claim that there would be no war under anarchy given that a state isn't needed for conflicts to arise - prehistoric stateless societies fought each other quite regularly. remove the state and its standing army and people will form militias around some common objective or interest. access to resources, for example is a possible desired outcome of war that exists independent of a gubmint.

baby's first introduction to how humans behave.

[Sir Suomi]

Donald Trump and Rand Paul would just be your average Republicans back when the Titanic was afloat.

https://media.giphy.com/media/fVYC8V8uWFuH6/giphy.gif
I saw Rand was mentioned

Anyways, I don't think you'll find much for Anarchists here. At most, you've basically got me as one of the more Libertarian members here. Granted, I need to post often for you to see me...

[phuckphace]

to add to my above points:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35370374

Archaeologists say they have unearthed the earliest evidence of warfare between hunter-gatherers to be scientifically dated, at a remote site in northern Kenya.

The 10,000-year-old remains of 27 people found west of Lake Turkana show that they met violent deaths.

They were left to die there rather than being buried.

Many experts have argued that conflict only came about as humans became more settled.

These people, by contrast, were apparently nomadic hunter-gatherers.

credit: Judean Zealot

[Collinsworthington]

:D Socialist you unlawful swine, jk welcome to ROTW