new anarchy spin

[lurkingwolf]

Originally Posted by headcase

What makes you think people were happy then? It was a constant struggle to survive, people had no hopes or dreams. Sounds pretty terrible to me.

Today's class of man is the most mixed-up, neurotic, and overall backwards species that has ever survived. With a normal species, when it develops a trait that is bad for survival, e.g. obesity, low I.Q., it's genetic line dies off from Darwinian natural selection. Humankind has managed to surpass this with technology, technology we don't even have to work for. Thus, we have the least healthy, fit, or intelligent people living and breeding. Our rigid social order rewards brownnosing and dumb luck rather than true intelligence or strength. This is why we have suicide, unlike other species. What other animal develops depression on such a wide basis. What species has surviving traits like media-addiction, and severe obesity. None.
We believe we are happy because we judge happiness with blind empty pleasure, rather than real animal satisfaction, like the joys of accomplishment and survival.

[headcase]

Of that entire post, the only real improvement that could be made was to reduce obesity and improve physical fitness, which I don't consider much of an improvement at all (given that it's achieved by making life more difficult). I can't understand your reference to IQ and intelligence at all. Make everyone ignorant will improve the world? Methinks not. Not your reference to suicide and other animals, who lack the higher conciousness and sentience for the idea.

Obesity, stupidity and pleasure without "happiness" (whatever that means) are not inescapable traps. I'm not obese or stupid and I'm content in the knowledge that I've achieved a lot in my short life. On top of that, I'm excited by the knowledge of the potential ahead of me; completion of an extensive education, a career, a family. I can avail of fantastic technologies (central heating, the internet, airplanes) and amazing knowledge - my bookshelf littered with psychedelica, cosmology, philosophy and biology. On top of all this, I have near infinite options. I can get fat. I can get fit. I can live in the woods. I can live in the city. I can enjoy the animal satisfaction of a hot shower on a cold morning. Of sex. I can do anything, or I can do nothing. I'm not forced to get up early in the morning to set rabbit traps. I don't have to plough fields to survive or wipe my ass with leaves. I can, but I don't have to. If you want to live in the woods, then why don't you? If it's so great, why are you still here? Surely the internet is just depressing your neurotic mind, desperate for... what? Meaning? Go out and get it yourself. Don't blame the world.

[lurkingwolf]

Originally Posted by headcase

Obesity, stupidity and pleasure without "happiness" (whatever that means) are not inescapable traps. I'm not obese or stupid and I'm content in the knowledge that I've achieved a lot in my short life. On top of that, I'm excited by the knowledge of the potential ahead of me; completion of an extensive education, a career, a family. I can avail of fantastic technologies (central heating, the internet, airplanes) and amazing knowledge - my bookshelf littered with psychedelica, cosmology, philosophy and biology. On top of all this, I have near infinite options. I can get fat. I can get fit. I can live in the woods. I can live in the city. I can enjoy the animal satisfaction of a hot shower on a cold morning. Of sex. I can do anything, or I can do nothing. I'm not forced to get up early in the morning to set rabbit traps. I don't have to plough fields to survive or wipe my ass with leaves. I can, but I don't have to. If you want to live in the woods, then why don't you? If it's so great, why are you still here? Surely the internet is just depressing your neurotic mind, desperate for... what? Meaning? Go out and get it yourself. Don't blame the world.

But what is education, really? And the career it preps you for? It's a way to make more money(a marker of worth determined by society) with which to buy more things that are genuinely unneeded. I know I'm stealing this from Chuck Palahniuk, but we start to develop the "Ikea Nesting Instinct"
Is a couch going to improve your happiness by much?
How about a vacation from the work you've enslaved yourself to?
Is media going to make anyone truly happy?
Accomplishment is a much better goal. Not accomplishment for the perpetuation of a valueless society, but the accomplishment of self-betterment and continued survival. Everything we buy with our paychecks, we could make ourselves, or take ourselves. Luxury can still be enjoyed by a hunter-gatherer, it just takes more work, which, in turn, makes it far more rewarding.

[jrly]

Originally Posted by lurkingwolf

But what is education, really? And the career it preps you for? It's a way to make more money(a marker of worth determined by society) with which to buy more things that are genuinely unneeded. I know I'm stealing this from Chuck Palahniuk, but we start to develop the "Ikea Nesting Instinct"
Is a couch going to improve your happiness by much?
How about a vacation from the work you've enslaved yourself to?
Is media going to make anyone truly happy?
Accomplishment is a much better goal. Not accomplishment for the perpetuation of a valueless society, but the accomplishment of self-betterment and continued survival. Everything we buy with our paychecks, we could make ourselves, or take ourselves. Luxury can still be enjoyed by a hunter-gatherer, it just takes more work, which, in turn, makes it far more rewarding.

You ask some english major whether or not they make a lot of money. If you want to make a lot of money go into business, but if there is something that you enjoy, then you go into that field, like if you like animals become a zoologist so that you can help them and most likely you wouldn't make nearly as much if you had decided to take a job that you would hate in business.

And with quoting chuck in fight club, and as much as I like that move/book and the rest of his stuff, that is part of what a lot his stuff is about, thinking for yourself. If you read fight club, rather than watch the movie, you might realize that the narrator is just being led around by tyler and the people of project mayhem are just mindless space monkeys. And with your anarchy, do you think that book would have been written and printed or the movie acted out and edited to its final brillance if their was anarchy like what you and others have spoken of.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by lurkingwolf

We believe we are happy because we judge happiness with blind empty pleasure, rather than real animal satisfaction, like the joys of accomplishment and survival.

Not all people judge happiness by "empty pleasure". Many find satisfaction in work, in hobbies and recreation, (which you won't have time for when growing your own food and building your own house), and in raising their children. Which they can care for and comfortably support due to the technologically advanced lifestyle we now have.
Animal satisfaction? You mean eating, sleeping and having sex? Sounds rather empty to me.

Originally Posted by lurkingwolf

Free of governmental restrictions and corporate media. That age was when we were truly happy, and psychologically stable.

Rubbish. Most people had fewer options, less leisure time and you aren't qualified to comment on their mental state.

Originally Posted by lurkingwolf

But what is education, really? And the career it preps you for? It's a way to make more money(a marker of worth determined by society) with which to buy more things that are genuinely unneeded.

Education is the preparation for life in a modern society. A career is up to you. As is what you buy. If you think that modcons are uneeded, why are you sitting at a computer and debating on an internet forum? You don't need this. Switch it off if you think it's useless.

Originally Posted by lurkingwolf

Is a couch going to improve your happiness by much?

Try sitting on the floor and see how much fun it is.

Originally Posted by lurkingwolf

Accomplishment is a much better goal. Not accomplishment for the perpetuation of a valueless society, but the accomplishment of self-betterment and continued survival.

Self-betterment is independant of technology. As for a "valueless society", what values do you hold? Do you make any attempt to "better" yourself, or improve the lives of others?
The human race is "surviving" quite well at the moment. Longer and more comfortably then ever before. In civilised countries anyway. People who live in anarchic or disfunctional countries have lives that are nasty, brutal, and short.

Originally Posted by lurkingwolf

Everything we buy with our paychecks, we could make ourselves, or take ourselves. Luxury can still be enjoyed by a hunter-gatherer, it just takes more work, which, in turn, makes it far more rewarding.

Luxury from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle? Try living in the woods for a month (preferably in winter), and see how luxurious it is. It takes more work just to survive as a hunter-gatherer, any luxury is a pipe dream.

So far there is nothing new in this thread. Just the usual teenage dream of a life without restrictions. I don't believe any of you would willingly give up the creature comforts that society provides you with.

[ANARCHY IS ORDER]

im not saying lets kill every one that is not in line its like vote right every one has a say without a grand leader lets say we have limited suplies but we need a hospital the town votes some say yes some say no lets say theres 23 for yes and 15 for no the yes have it its a vote its fair and still no leader so TOGETHER key word here no mater what there will be disagreements but if you vote its fair like a democrocy with out a leader

[Steve_TPF]

As I have said previously, this is impractical for anything but a very small community, especially when everyone has to vote on everything. There is a reason why people are willing to hand over authority to representatives.

[Core Entropy]

Anarchy in the past was total civilian rule and you NEVER saw it result in civil destruction. I am seeing his views on this because if the earth was an Anarchy personally i would get a group of Fellow Anarchists together and make a task force keeping up-rises and total power domination that would be the one thing i would worry about. But if we have task-forces to help keep people from doing mass murders and stuff then yes.
Total Anarchy is just Ridiculously Stupid
Restricted Anarchy makes sense, it keeps peace and people happy. The government only rips you off by making you pay for everything where as a restricted Anarchy would not have that, it would be if you want something, you need to be working. If your not working somewhere you cannot get anything, even groceries. This way everyone works to get stuff that people have worked to produce. In my version of Anarchy it all is balanced out.

Then there is Rev-Anarchy (Revolution)
This is not Anarchy at all but it uses Anarchy and its Symbol as a scapegoat to create crime in the world.

That is my spin on Anarchy.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by ANARCHYisKING

SteveTPF - who guarded the indian's tepee when he/she was out hunting?
probably a family member or friend within the village.
anarchy would work. most people don't want it because they are so plugged in to the system that they are out of touch with nature.

So now you are talking about a social structure with agreed laws and values.

Originally Posted by "ANARCHYisKING

a tribal type of life would have to be used in order to create a "loose" order.

No kidding. The native americans were tribal, not anarchic.

Call me out of touch with nature if you will, but I see no reason to dig in the ground for my food when I can buy it at the supermarket. Nor am I willing to trust to the goodwill of the common man for my security.

[Trench Coat Crow]

[quote=dielivelife;39168]i dont think tahat anybody really understands the idea of anarchy. im not going to generalize, but it seems to me that a lot of people think taht if we have anarchy then there is going to be chaos around the world

listen yes there will be chaos but not for a long while, the public will feel freedom and they will take advantage of it and after a certain period of time they not use it as much but for the weak it will be a harder life but stronger people who can organize themselves and put together a group to which they can benefit would happen again, the government, but i would think that government would try and come back for decades maybe even centuries but other than that you are right chaos would be small and roits would be gone. no more strikes. of course than you have fighting over land portions and plain just mass killings but hey if you can defend you self in your home who cares.

[Skelton]

in anarchy there is one form of oppression, the working class against the criminal class(people who harm others in anyway) of course the sudden collapse of all governments were cause huge problems

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by Trench Coat Crow

im not going to generalize, but it seems to me that a lot of people think taht if we have anarchy then there is going to be chaos around the world

Without government and law enforcement there would be.

Originally Posted by Trench Coat Crow

listen yes there will be chaos but not for a long while, the public will feel freedom and they will take advantage of it and after a certain period of time they not use it as much

Why wouldn't they if there is no-one to stop them?

Originally Posted by Trench Coat Crow

but for the weak it will be a harder life but stronger people who can organize themselves and put together a group to which they can benefit would happen again,the government, but i would think that government would try and come back for decades maybe even centuries but other than that you are right chaos would be small and roits would be gone

If you want to keep posting on this forum then for goodness' sake pay more attention to your grammar. Read that sentence yourself and see if even you understand it.
I presume you mean that people would group together in bands or gangs to better their situation. They would - at the expense of others. Chaos would be small? Chaos would be rampant. Look at countries where government or rule of law has broken down (Rwanda, Burundi, Afghanistan,) and see what happens.

Also consider that in the modern age it isn't the strongest who would prevail. It is the ones with the most firepower, plain and simple. Many african militia groups make use of child soldiers, to do their killing. These teenage psychopaths are completely incapable of forming a working society. All they can do is prey on others.

Originally Posted by Trench Coat Crow

of course than you have fighting over land portions and plain just mass killings but hey if you can defend you self in your home who cares.

Because you can't defend yourself you idiot. If someone can't break in they can burn your house down. Think about what you would actually be able to do if say, a Hell's Angels chapter started beating on your door. No cops to call, no military - you'd be butt-raped and barbequed.

Anyone who really thinks that a no-rules environment will work itself out should try living in shared accommodation. It's surprising the number of people who don't think they have to contribute to even the most basic requirements of living.

[Darkshadow666]

I'd have to say that anarchy would eventually lead to small-scale socialist villages, but if the internet was still running, society would still be pretty much connected.

[Steve_TPF]

Except it wouldn't be. It takes a large infrastructure, including power stations, to keep it operational. Who's going to do that? How do you stop people from scavenging the lines and relays?

[Black_Devil]

Steve can be critical at times, be he's right about complete anarchy. We need limited government controlled by the will of the people to ensure freedom, liberty, and justice. I think most anarchist describe this in there interpretation, people governing themselves. But this can only be done with organization, which would be near impossible to achive in absoulute anarchy, so it would mean some form of government, which is not anarchy.

[Lone Gunman]

I believe the term anarchy is an interpretive one however all interpretations of an anarchist society lack leadership.

I believe that we could survive w/o a lot of the government.

A nation could be run by the people without a central government system and most of it's laws.

While this is good in theory it can never happen because deep down most people have a desire to be told what to do and will listen to anyone and do as they are told.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Lone Gunman

I believe the term anarchy is an interpretive one however all interpretations of an anarchist society lack leadership.

I believe that we could survive w/o a lot of the government.

A nation could be run by the people without a central government system and most of it's laws.

While this is good in theory it can never happen because deep down most people have a desire to be told what to do and will listen to anyone and do as they are told.

I am sure that a community of 20 people could survive reasonably well without a dedicated leader. Depending on the nature of the people, perhaps a community of 100 could survive without a dedicated leader, though I doubt it (at that size, there will no doubt be problems, and with no government how do you solve those problems without affecting the greater community?).

According to Wikipedia, the city of New York is home to over 8,200,000 people. Further, the city of Mumbai is home to over 13,600,000 people. How do you keep communities of these sizes peaceful and functional?

[The Surgeon]

Im sure some of you readers are already annoyed with me. I care not.

Everyone has their own definition of anarchy. Be it chaos, disorder, no government, etc.

The thing most of these people I have noticed, they haven't even read any philosophy on anarchy. They just take the demonized version at face value as being right because its the "norm" of thought.

But true anarchy in my thoughts (and a few anarcho-thinkers) is summed up in the following example (that I thought of, There are other examples (will list them))

1) The wild west: Pre railroads, pre-pinkerton. Ahh a glorious example of true anarchy, AKA: Extreme democracy in my book. Towns were a loose affiliation of people (not in the governmental form of the word). You had Shop keepers, farmers, tailors, etc, (No anarchy does not mean an absence of capitalism, there is also anarcho communism, etc). You had a sheriff, Who was appointed by the people, to uphold the law. When they thought he wasnt doing his job (however long that may have been) they ousted him. And put in a new guy. When something came along that required more than one sheriff. The town would form a posse, do the deed (round up the outlaws, whatever). Then disband. This made it harder to form cartels and organizations, hence less corruption.

Than the railroads and johnny law came along. Corruption at higher levels trickled down into the populace, which led to all the stories we read about and see in movies.

Look, what it boils down to is this. Anarchy works, And it does work, and has work