new anarchy spin

[ANARCHY IS ORDER]

so i have relized that a lot of the people i have been talking to dont like the idea of anarchy well i would love to hear some of the idea some of you have it would be a leraning thing for me i my self have been a anarchist for 3 years now and i love to hear new ideas or spins but anywho heres my spin......... ok to lets say the earth was thrown in to anarchy some say without order we would not make it i say bullshit you make small communist like towns not communisum just every one working for the good of the township all for one one for all kind of thing but say someone breaks the chain of brotherhood you kick them out of the township now alone and lost they will not make it by themself. so ya there it is for you more idea would be great i have to wright a paper in class about radical idea of man so any help would be great thanks



death is only skin deep
anarchy is order

[DemonSpawn]

this is the wikipedia definitionof anarchy:
Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:

"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[1]
"A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[3]

It seems like your definition of anarchy doesn't match with wiki seeing as everybody having a say and working together sounds like rousseau not anarchy. Although you could pull a case for it fitting case # 2 of the anarchy definition. It sounds like a good theoretically funcional system, but it dosn't sound like anarchy to me. Keep working on your idea kid, and eventually you'll get it right.

[ANARCHY IS ORDER]

thanks man hey if you could find me some more stuff that would be great



death is only skin deep
anarchy is order

[crazy white guy]

so your saying everybody who shares the same ideas as you will be accepted,
and everyone else ejected based on their beliefs


hitler?

[Random]

Originally Posted by ANARCHY IS ORDER

thanks man hey if you could find me some more stuff that would be great

Why not find it yourself? It's all out there, waiting for you to find it (both on the internet, and on these forums). All you need to do is type a few words and click "search".

If that's too hard for you, I would be shocked if you were capable of intelligent discussion...

[dielivelife]

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, but i don't think thats it at all. there are many people who are self sufficient and will se that certain things need to be done, and people don't care about the laws anyway, or all of our jails wouldn't be full. many people that i have known have been in jail or juevy and say its nothing, if you want ot do something bad enough youll do it. anarchy would jsut allow people to do what they want, and half the reason people do things taht they aren't supposed to do is because, its not allowed, its human mind. if someone told me not to do it I would, just to say that i could. anarchy would just give people the decision or the right to do what they want and not to tell them somehting different. i think that anarchy would lead to somethig better, because there wouldn't be fights over wars, or the government or things, that aren't of importance. i know this was long but this subject can be very touchy.

[crazy white guy]

i cant help but think that anarchy is against human nature. Everybody in this world is either a leader or a follower. That doesn't leave anybody that will let themselves lose their power. You would also lose your ipods and cars. there would be no-one to make them. The people who sell you something would have to have more power than you if they are selling to more than just their home town. I don't believe in equality and even less in pure anarchism.

[Steve_TPF]

The idea of anarchy comes along now and then on this forum. I have several objections, but basically it comes down to this: no-one has demonstrated how I would be better off in an anarchic society. Without government there would be no roads, schools, hospitals or effective law enforcement. (Note: a lynch mob is not effective law enforcement.) There wouldn't even be anyone to collect the garbage.
As crazy white guy pointed out, there would be no advanced technology because it requires a cohesive society to create industry. At best everyone would be farmers, at worst, thieves. The village council idea sounds good in theory, but is impractical if everyone has to be involved in every decision. The moment you appoint representatives (village elders, tribal council etc.) you have rudimentary government, which means you no longer have "anarchy".

For civilisation to exist as it does, especially in modern countries, requires specialist industries, social cohesion and public services. The latter require funding and organisation, which means taxation and government.

Anyone who still likes the idea of anarchy might want to consider how they are going to live when they get older. Don't expect your neighbours to feed you.

[rockr98]

I believe that Democracy isn't really the answer, nor Anarchy, the idea of a Monarchy has been completely thrown aside here. Back to what someone said about leaders and followers, that's more so my basis of a perfectly guided union. An idea of everyone being followed by a grand leader, with a set of others that follow there orders, so basicly different sects of Monarchies is what I think is right.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by rockr98

An idea of everyone being followed by a grand leader, with a set of others that follow there orders, so basicly different sects of Monarchies is what I think is right.

Everyone followed by a grand leader? If he's following, he isn't leading.
In any case, who chooses the "grand leader"? Or the "set of others"? What if they turn out to be stupid or corrupt, what then?

There is a reason why monarchies have gone out of fashion. No accountability. Too much power invested in one person, and no provision for their removal if things go bad. (They often do with monarchies.)

[Squad 11 Kenpachi Zaraki]

I support anarchy but the more i think about it the more it goes away from anarchy and to where the strongest survive. Say anarchy dose happen and the governments all around the world collapse, if this happens it would be ever person for them self, looting, crime rise, and all. But eventually some one will get more power than another person and gain control over them. Or some one wanting protection goes to this person with power and goes under them for protection. He/She has the power thus he/she rules, and anarchy is no more. But at the same time some one would fight to kill the person in power and most likely have his own group, making it a battle between crime bosses. So no matter what some one will be fighting for total control.

[crazy white guy]

I love this argument. Anarchy is against human nature like I mentioned before. But so is democracy. Do you see why? People on this earth have two thing that they want to do. Fuck like rabbits, and kill everyone who doesn't believe in the same things as them. There is no possible argument against it. Its not as black and white as I said but thats basically how it is. Sex explains love. Killing also explains love in the fact that love is what we feel when we want our family to be protected. This is also true with friends and extended family. People that share our beliefs(family0 are protected by us.

In a democracy we don't all think exactly the same. Thats why there is corruption and war. Hitler knew what he wanted and took the help of the people who shared his beliefs to seize it. The perfect government would have to be one that is above the people, but not totalitarian. Imagine a police force, but they are not above normal men but beside them. This would leave very little room for a high order of corruption. The idea of corruption is universal. The only way you can have a government without corruption is if they always have a gun to each other's head.

We would be communist socialists if I'm not mistaken.

[Paranoid Ecstasy]

Originally Posted by crazy white guy

I love this argument. Anarchy is against human nature like I mentioned before. But so is democracy. Do you see why? People on this earth have two thing that they want to do. Fuck like rabbits, and kill everyone who doesn't believe in the same things as them. There is no possible argument against it.

I completely disagree with you here.
Where I live we respect uniqueness and being different.
If someone has different believes or a different style.
I have no anger towards them.
I do not try to persuade, infact I try to see it from their view.
Than I try tell them my view and why I think believe that.

Saying to kill everyone who believes anything different than you is just ignorant.
Good job Hitler.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by crazy white guy

People on this earth have two thing that they want to do. Fuck like rabbits, and kill everyone who doesn't believe in the same things as them. There is no possible argument against it.

Wrong on both counts. Most people don't want to kill everyone who disagrees with them, and yes there are arguments against it. Even if you discount any moral objections, there is still the practical aspect. A group of people who killed each other at whim would quickly wipe themselves out. Co-operation would be impossible.

Originally Posted by crazy white guy

Killing also explains love in the fact that love is what we feel when we want our family to be protected.

Not all killing is done to protect family and friends. Furthermore, there is more to love than simply protecting family.

Originally Posted by crazy white guy

The only way you can have a government without corruption is if they always have a gun to each other's head.

Or transparency and accountability.

[DeathToSociety]

Anarchy is not against nature, I believe true anarchy means survival of the fittest, which is what animals live by, and which leads to evolution.
We have reached the point where it is no longer neccesary to be strong in order to survive which means we cannot evolve into a superior species.
If humans continue to live like this, i predict a world where everyone is weak and the only solution is anarchy.
If anything, civilization is against nature.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by DeathToSociety

We have reached the point where it is no longer neccesary to be strong in order to survive which means we cannot evolve into a superior species.

I agree with this. In fact I've made this point in other threads.

Originally Posted by DeathToSociety

f humans continue to live like this, i predict a world where everyone is weak and the only solution is anarchy.
If anything, civilization is against nature.

I disagree with this part. While it is no longer necessary to be strong in order to survive (in most countries anyway), it is still possible to improve the gene pool by selective breeding, and possibly genetic manipulation.

I don't agree that anarchy is a solution. While it would lead to stronger humans as the weaker ones died off, it would also spell the end of cultural and technological development. The surviving humans would also tend to be the dumber, more aggressive ones. I don't see that as a step forward. I also disagree that civilisation is against nature. Many animals live in groups, humans are simply more organised and technologically capable. It is within our nature to form societies, and our quality of life improves greatly thereby.

[ANARCHYisKING]

anarchy is the absence of an elected and paid government. however, anarchy is not the absence of structure or a small group of people making decisions. anarchy is not chaos and disorder. just ask osama bin laden about that. he is believed to be in Northwest pakistan, which is an area living in anarchy. they go about there days on a normal basis

[DeathToSociety]

Anarchy wouldn't lead to the end of technological development, people who understand how to build any form of technology would teach their kids. They wouldn't have factories to build them so they will have to make it themselves, I don't think this would end technology, just set it back a bit and let it go a different way. As for cultural development, who cares most cultures are built on lies.

I know history repeats itself so living in anarchy wouldn't last long before someone takes control, but I think anarchy is what we need right now, the governments of the world have way too much power.

[ANARCHYisKING]

anarchy is basically where the Rule of the Jungle prevails. the rule of the jungle is common sense. i know the native americans(indians) had it right.
they basically lived by this rule. large governments will always enslave you even if they claim to be a "free" government like the USA claims.

read the book, "Black Dawn, Bright Day" by Sun Bear. i have it if anybody wants to borrow it.

current civilization and it's courts = enslavement
rule of the jungle(common sense) = freedom

[DeathToSociety]

I agree.
On a different topic, did you hear about that tribe that has been untouched by the outside world (until now). I would love to live in a place like that.

[Core Entropy]

In Wikipedia that is the correct observation of Anarchy, but in this new day and age people are bending Anarchy and its sign to create a chaotic belief which makes people believe that chaos is to follow every anarchist. As of right now Anarchy is being used as a scapegoat for people who perform chaos. Any new day and age Anarchist does not completely understand their own beliefs but to destroy and that is not anarchy, that is Deficism which i cannot find in Wikipedia.
Deficism is the belief that total chaos ensues the practice of liberating all peoples for their own decisions hence, Absence of government. Anarchy = Absence of Government so people confuse the two together.

[ANARCHYisKING]

DeathtoSociety - yeah i heard about that tribe. they are living in a true reality and we are living in a dillusional society. it would be fun to live there. i bet the women there are awesome. lol

[headcase]

A true reality where they fire arrows at the big metal bird in the sky? Or a true reality with Newtonian laws of physics and Special Relativity?

Originally Posted by ANARCHYisKING

i bet the women there are awesome. lol

Says it all really.

And I doubt that tribe in anarchic.

[Core Entropy]

Originally Posted by DeathToSociety

I agree.
On a different topic, did you hear about that tribe that has been untouched by the outside world (until now). I would love to live in a place like that.

Sorta suck no internet to conceive drugs from :\

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by ANARCHYisKING

anarchy is the absence of an elected and paid government. however, anarchy is not the absence of structure or a small group of people making decisions. anarchy is not chaos and disorder.

Fair point, but if the ones making the decisions are "unelected" then how is anyone guaranteed representation? How is the group selected? How does it enforce decisions?

Originally Posted by ANARCHYisKING

just ask osama bin laden about that. he is believed to be in Northwest pakistan, which is an area living in anarchy. they go about there days on a normal basis

What is the quality of life like in northwest Pakistan?

Originally Posted by DeathToSociety

Anarchy wouldn't lead to the end of technological development, people who understand how to build any form of technology would teach their kids. They wouldn't have factories to build them so they will have to make it themselves, I don't think this would end technology, just set it back a bit and let it go a different way. As for cultural development, who cares most cultures are built on lies.

Without factories and tools (and factories to make the tools), you will find that the technology you can build is very limited. Since no one person has all the knowledge or skills to make everything, co-operation and specialisation is required. Which is what we have now. Without the centralised control of government to keep a society running it would be impossible to continue with our current standard of living. If you want to "go bush" and live it rough that's fine, but I'm not going to follow you.

Re: cultural development: I'm not sure what you meant by "most cultures are built on lies". The culture I value is any that provides equal rights and representation for all members, as well as freedom of speech, expression, and public services. I don't believe I would have any of these things in an anarchic society.

[DeathToSociety]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Fair point, but if the ones making the decisions are "unelected" then how is anyone guaranteed representation? How is the group selected? How does it enforce decisions?



What is the quality of life like in northwest Pakistan?



Without factories and tools (and factories to make the tools), you will find that the technology you can build is very limited. Since no one person has all the knowledge or skills to make everything, co-operation and specialisation is required. Which is what we have now. Without the centralised control of government to keep a society running it would be impossible to continue with our current standard of living. If you want to "go bush" and live it rough that's fine, but I'm not going to follow you.

Re: cultural development: I'm not sure what you meant by "most cultures are built on lies". The culture I value is any that provides equal rights and representation for all members, as well as freedom of speech, expression, and public services. I don't believe I would have any of these things in an anarchic society.

The decisions are enforced by people who can enforce them, remember this is based on survival of the fittest.

By the cultures thing I was refering to religion.
Anarchy is the most free ideology of all, it means you can do whatever you want, you could make a point about serial killers and rapists and shit like that, If you are attacked by anyone in an anarchist society it is up to you to defend yourself, and it's up to parents to defend their children when they're too young.
But I doubt there would be as many serial killers and rapists because everyone would have less free time.

edit- Another thing, I think you are thinking about people living in giant cities in an anarchist society, this would not work. Try to think about a pack of wolves or something like that, thats what I have in mind when I think of anarchy.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by DeathToSociety

The decisions are enforced by people who can enforce them, remember this is based on survival of the fittest.

Which would lead to chaos and disorder. I don't see how this benefits anyone.

Originally Posted by [DeathToSociety"

Anarchy is the most free ideology of all, it means you can do whatever you want, you could make a point about serial killers and rapists and shit like that, If you are attacked by anyone in an anarchist society it is up to you to defend yourself, and it's up to parents to defend their children when they're too young.

Again, where is the advantage in this? Sure, you would have "freedom", but you would also have no rights whatsoever. Moreover, the "anarchy" would only last until a few people got organised into gangs. The result would be a tribal/feudal society in a steady downward spiral.

Originally Posted by DeathToSociety

Another thing, I think you are thinking about people living in giant cities in an anarchist society, this would not work. Try to think about a pack of wolves or something like that, thats what I have in mind when I think of anarchy.

No, I'm not thinking of cities in an anarchic society, because that wouldn't be possible. I'm thinking of a scenario that looks like Mad Max 2 &3. That's my point. There would be no civilisation, no law, no electricity even. Why would I want to abandon everything I now have just so I can fight for my very survival? My quality of life, (and indeed, life expectancy,) would drop dramatically.

No-one has demonstrated how I (or anyone else), would be better off under anarchy. If you want to live in a cave and grow your own food be my guest. I'm comfortable where I am.

[lurkingwolf]

Anarchy is not a long-term goal, or a real political goal. Anarchy is the means to an end. I agree with all Anarchists that society in its current form is wrong and restrictive. But Anarchy cannot perpetuate itself, social order always develops. Whether such a society is simply a pack structure with which to hunt or survive, or instead a commune like the creator of the thread mentioned, Humans are still a pack animal. I myself support a breakdown of social order, but with the goal of attaining the true humanity that once existed when humans were hunter-gatherers. Free of governmental restrictions and corporate media. That age was when we were truly happy, and psychologically stable.

[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. In fact, what makes you think people aren't happy now? I'm happy now. Steve_TPF is happy now. Your arguementis still falling at the first hurdle; how will anarchy improve anything?

[jrly]

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. In fact, what makes you think people aren't happy now? I'm happy now. Steve_TPF is happy now. Your arguementis still falling at the first hurdle; how will anarchy improve anything?

I think they just want a freedom, but what is actually where they would have less options to be free because every second would be a constant struggle to survive.