Anarchy

[krystalm]

Any fellow anarcho-commies? or anarachist in this forum? I feel so alone haha!

[Underground_Network]

I are be anarchist on the inside. 0.o

I are scream "anarchy" on my bus two years ago. Does that make me Anarchist?

[krystalm]

Hahaha Anarchy is a belief in no government in the simplest definition! If you believe that then sure =D

[Camazotz]

Im not an anarchist. I believe that governments work better when strong and centralized.

[Underground_Network]

I believe if every single human except for George W. Bush shot themselves in the head at the same time, the world would be an interesting place. "Oooo oooo aaaa aaaa" anybody?

[Maverick]

I'm not an anarchist but I do believe that government should be as small as possible.

[0=]

Ideologically I am, but since it doesn't work in the real world, no.

[krystalm]

abcd

[*Dissident*]

Viva La Acf!

[redcar]

We need a government. People are animals, there always needs to be a chain of command, an alpha male, someone who will make a final decision. The world would collapse into absolute total and utter ruin if we didn't. And even then if we didn't have governments our primal instinct would kick in and we would group together, and low and behold somoene would take charge and new small chain of command would take over. It is in our nature as humans to rule and be ruled.

[Whisper]

I agree with alex were pack animals

[Rutherford The Brave]

Yeah, we need a leader. But still I grew up in a state with one leader (cheiftain) so I'm not used to the president style government of the U.S.A.

[serial-thrilla]

I think that any anarchist needs to rethink their standpoint. If there was anarchy you would have nothing protecting you. There would be theft/murder/rape at a much higher rate then ever before. You could be enslaved/tortured by some sick fuck and there would be no government to hire law enforcment to stop it. I understand that "laws" can exist in anarchy but they really couldnt be enforced that well. I do believe in as little government interference as possible, but it we do need a leader.

[krystalm]

abcd

[Hyper]

Governments consist of humans.

Humans are different..

The part of humanity that could live beatifully in Anarchy is very very small.

If there was no paper and no shallow society people wouldn't be much motivated to do any work.. And well just face it Anarchy will never happen.. I could try to explain why but its just too obvious.. Humans. And I'm tired

[krystalm]

abcd

[Hyper]

people don't have faith in much anymore. if you didn't work, you would be pushed out of society.

has anyone actually took time out of there days to look up what exactly an anarchist society entails?

You explained it quite well.. And even if you didn't

No government, No currency = Chaos. There are so few people who could live without money and enforced laws & seeming order.

And have you ever used your imagination to think what would it be like if people had no restrictions and if their only protection was other peoples kindness?

[SirRawrsalot]

if people had no restrictions and if their only protection was other peoples kindness?

It's the strong weed out the weak. If you have something I want and I'm stronger than I take it. There's no one to protect you, no government. Although the U.S. is corrupt at times (most times) it does a good job of keeping the citizens safe from other citizens. That food you eat, imagine having to hunt that cow. I doubt it would be a peaceful village where you could barter. No Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Starbucks. Nothing civilized like that. Your American Eagle Outfitter shirt? Nope.

[Curthose93]

Some of the responses I've read seem to lean toward the idea that anarchy=chaos. This is not necessarily true, so long as people show common sense, restraint and a bit of tolerance.

Laws do not require government. It's kind of like mob-rule(democracy): If the majority of people think that something is wrong(i.e murder, theft, slavery, polluting the environment), then the minority that thinks those things are ok will be cowed into submission. If the minority refuses to conform, then the people can fund a private security organization to ensure that such practices are not allowed in their communities. Basically, the laws are enforced by strength of numbers, without any government taking taxes or restricting your travel or where you live. That brings up another point; the thing that makes the world go 'round: the economy. You all must realize that money, trade and industry have been around since well before government. People want to work and get paid, people want to buy things...


I think that anarchy is a good thing, but the world is far too divided and militant to allow it at this point. Religion, Jihads, Crusades, greed and ignorance mean that even if the US becomes anarchic, the oppressive governments elsewhere (China, the Middle East) still believe that they have reason to exist, and the weakness caused by a lack of military authority in the former US would simply put us all in danger of being conquered by more tyrannical overlords. So I guess that what I'm saying is that we must first homogenize(in a good way) social philosophy on a global leval. Only then can governmentalism safely be abandoned.

Uhh... so yeah, I guess. I'm an anarchist.

[Hyper]

Oeh its like listening to somebodys mantra.

Anarchy can't work you just don't get it do you? The majority of people can't live without a rutine without a certain way of doing things, basically without being told what to do.

Heck most people can't even think for themselves. And ''Anarchy'' wouldn't change that.

How many people would actually bother to work if they had no need to.

I could get into it more and more.

But the point is Anarchy will NEVER happen!

[Curthose93]

Oeh its like listening to somebodys mantra.

Anarchy can't work you just don't get it do you? The majority of people can't live without a rutine without a certain way of doing things, basically without being told what to do.

Heck most people can't even think for themselves. And ''Anarchy'' wouldn't change that.

How many people would actually bother to work if they had no need to.

I could get into it more and more.

But the point is Anarchy will NEVER happen!

Point 1: Anarchy = NO RULERS/GOVERNMENT, not NO SOCIETY.

It's not as if the government is the only dominant force in people's lives. There are two very important things to take into consideration: Society, as in a shit-load of people interacting with each other, whether they want to or not, and necessity, as in what must be done to survive and, if desired, prosper..

Society provides for people, through employment(working together), law and order(looking out for each other), and so on. Almost all of us realize that more can be done if there are more people working together in agreement, so even though you don't realize it, people can still work together, have routines and if situation calls for it, "follow the leader", without placing undue authority in the hands of a powerful organization such as a government.

Necessity means that even if we don't want to work, provide for ourselves or be civil to others, we have to, because it is necessary to our survival. It's not the government that forces us to work. It is our basic needs to eat, and be tolerated by others that drives humanity.

And besides, not ALL people have to live in anarchy if they don't want to. So long as their government does not threaten the anarchist territory or people, peaceful coexistence of freemen in one place and a government elsewhere is possible. Anarchy can defend itself, whether through security organizations funded by the people, mass resistance by the people, or both.

[Hyper]

Point 1: Anarchy = NO RULERS/GOVERNMENT, not NO SOCIETY.

It's not as if the government is the only dominant force in people's lives. There are two very important things to take into consideration: Society, as in a shit-load of people interacting with each other, whether they want to or not, and necessity, as in what must be done to survive and, if desired, prosper..

Society provides for people, through employment(working together), law and order(looking out for each other), and so on. Almost all of us realize that more can be done if there are more people working together in agreement, so even though you don't realize it, people can still work together, have routines and if situation calls for it, "follow the leader", without placing undue authority in the hands of a powerful organization such as a government.

Necessity means that even if we don't want to work, provide for ourselves or be civil to others, we have to, because it is necessary to our survival. It's not the government that forces us to work. It is our basic needs to eat, and be tolerated by others that drives humanity.

And besides, not ALL people have to live in anarchy if they don't want to. So long as their government does not threaten the anarchist territory or people, peaceful coexistence of freemen in one place and a government elsewhere is possible. Anarchy can defend itself, whether through security organizations funded by the people, mass resistance by the people, or both.

Ohh wow..

Theres more work than necessary work. Necessary work involves growing food and distributing it.. If you look at bluntly clothes, restuarants, CDs aren't necessary.. Neither are computers, the internent etc..

Even if the United States government dissolved today your perfect Anarchy would last 5 days untill 500 new governments are formed.

And sure anybody can make a commune..

[Curthose93]

Since when does the government run restaurants, make clothes and release CD's? You have misconceptions about with whom certain responsibilities lie. You talk as if the world is communism, an entirely state-owned affair. It sounds as though you've never heard of capitalism, free-market or individuality. It's called economy. Some people want money, and others prefer payment and civilization to hunting and subsistence farming.


P.S. Please cut the "Oh wow" shit. It's rude and not at all helpful-- to you or me.

[krystalm]

Some of the responses I've read seem to lean toward the idea that anarchy=chaos. This is not necessarily true, so long as people show common sense, restraint and a bit of tolerance.

Laws do not require government. It's kind of like mob-rule(democracy): If the majority of people think that something is wrong(i.e murder, theft, slavery, polluting the environment), then the minority that thinks those things are ok will be cowed into submission. If the minority refuses to conform, then the people can fund a private security organization to ensure that such practices are not allowed in their communities. Basically, the laws are enforced by strength of numbers, without any government taking taxes or restricting your travel or where you live. That brings up another point; the thing that makes the world go 'round: the economy. You all must realize that money, trade and industry have been around since well before government. People want to work and get paid, people want to buy things...


I think that anarchy is a good thing, but the world is far too divided and militant to allow it at this point. Religion, Jihads, Crusades, greed and ignorance mean that even if the US becomes anarchic, the oppressive governments elsewhere (China, the Middle East) still believe that they have reason to exist, and the weakness caused by a lack of military authority in the former US would simply put us all in danger of being conquered by more tyrannical overlords. So I guess that what I'm saying is that we must first homogenize(in a good way) social philosophy on a global leval. Only then can governmentalism safely be abandoned.

Uhh... so yeah, I guess. I'm an anarchist.


Finally, someone who understands.

[Whisper]

I think anarchy like communism is good in theory yet severely flawed in reality
Right now the western world has the power
Its been like that for a very long time (roman empire, British Empire, United States)
and considering I live in the west and don't much care for the Chinese or russian gov
I want it to stay that way

[Hyper]

Since when does the government run restaurants, make clothes and release CD's? You have misconceptions about with whom certain responsibilities lie. You talk as if the world is communism, an entirely state-owned affair. It sounds as though you've never heard of capitalism, free-market or individuality. It's called economy. Some people want money, and others prefer payment and civilization to hunting and subsistence farming.


P.S. Please cut the "Oh wow" shit. It's rude and not at all helpful-- to you or me.

You see it sounds to me like you've never opened your eyes and seen what different people are like.

Have you also heard that the healthcare system is one of the things related to government? Or the law enforcements, fire departments.. Etc

I am beginning to think you never even thought to consider anything about people and the government system in general since you got your childish dream.

No Government does equal chaos.. Who would pay the medical workers, police officers, fire department..

Or do you think their not necessary? Or do you think we'll be without currency and the strongest will take what they want?

Knowing human nature that would just result in warlord states..

ANyway I am done.. I'm problably not going to post here again.

[*Dissident*]

Kolte posted something about Anarchistic Communism years ago, and it completely changed my mind. And for the most part, it is impossible in todays world. There are just to many greedy people, and just to many lazy people. But, if in some distant or not-so-distant future, where people could work hard and be happy with what they have, then it can happen.

Anarchy would basically create 5000 or 5 million governments, you are right. But they would all be towns and communities, not states and countries. A town would form, give itself a name, and a council would be elected. They would be made of people who lived in the town, knew the people, worked with them. They would be the perfect governing body for the town, because thats who they are. And each town would sustain itself. People would do what was needed to not only survive, but to survive very comfortably. And in today/tomorrow's world, there would be no need for each town to be isolated, due to communications technology. If the "greed gene" could somehow disappear, then the whole thing would work. But today, there are too many people that would attempt to take power, or not work hard enough to even dream of such a perfect society.

Oh well.

[Curthose93]

You see it sounds to me like you've never opened your eyes and seen what different people are like.

Have you also heard that the healthcare system is one of the things related to government? Or the law enforcements, fire departments.. Etc

I am beginning to think you never even thought to consider anything about people and the government system in general since you got your childish dream.

No Government does equal chaos.. Who would pay the medical workers, police officers, fire department..

Or do you think their not necessary? Or do you think we'll be without currency and the strongest will take what they want?

Knowing human nature that would just result in warlord states..

ANyway I am done.. I'm problably not going to post here again.


Hahaha! WHAT? You showed such little respect -- I dare say none at all--, and you did not use any evidence or reasoning to refute the anarchist position. You simply denied the reality of society and the existence of human empathy and compassion, overestimated the functions of governemnt, stated overly-pessimistic fallacies and used your warped view of human nature to validate your ideas..... you're just ridiculous.

Anyway... I'm not the prick who started this circle-jerk. I too say we end this little "debate" and let others take part in what this thread was originally meant to be-- a simple self-identification request for anarchists.

[AlexFire]

I'm 100% anarchist, and I know it can work, however we are not yet ready for it, the wars and problems in the world probe that, like it was already posted :yeah::
Some of the responses I've read seem to lean toward the idea that anarchy=chaos. This is not necessarily true, so long as people show common sense, restraint and a bit of tolerance.

Laws do not require government. It's kind of like mob-rule(democracy): If the majority of people think that something is wrong(i.e murder, theft, slavery, polluting the environment), then the minority that thinks those things are ok will be cowed into submission. If the minority refuses to conform, then the people can fund a private security organization to ensure that such practices are not allowed in their communities. Basically, the laws are enforced by strength of numbers, without any government taking taxes or restricting your travel or where you live. That brings up another point; the thing that makes the world go 'round: the economy. You all must realize that money, trade and industry have been around since well before government. People want to work and get paid, people want to buy things...


I think that anarchy is a good thing, but the world is far too divided and militant to allow it at this point. Religion, Jihads, Crusades, greed and ignorance mean that even if the US becomes anarchic, the oppressive governments elsewhere (China, the Middle East) still believe that they have reason to exist, and the weakness caused by a lack of military authority in the former US would simply put us all in danger of being conquered by more tyrannical overlords. So I guess that what I'm saying is that we must first homogenize(in a good way) social philosophy on a global leval. Only then can governmentalism safely be abandoned.

Uhh... so yeah, I guess. I'm an anarchist.

[CaptainObvious]

Anarchy is inefficient and impractical in an economic sense; public goods (if you cannot give me the economic definition of a public good, you're not qualified to respond to this) are such that they must be provided by a government to attain economic efficiency. Anarchy fails to properly provide public goods, therefore it is inferior.

[Curthose93]

Anarchy is inefficient and impractical in an economic sense; public goods (if you cannot give me the economic definition of a public good, you're not qualified to respond to this) are such that they must be provided by a government to attain economic efficiency. Anarchy fails to properly provide public goods, therefore it is inferior.


Support your argument.... please. Don't just say "I think this and I somehow know that only the government can do this." Say WHY you think that, and why we should, too. Please don't act like Hyper-- Such behavior simply annoys the anarchists and embarasses the supporters of governments.

[Hyper]

Please don't act like Hyper-- Such behavior simply annoys the anarchists and embarasses the supporters of governments.

Hmm please don't act like a child carrying a grudge? :P