PDA

View Full Version : Anarchy



Pages : [1] 2

the_GoDdEsS
08-21-2005, 02:52 PM
Okay, I understand that you kids listen to punk rawk, and punk is all about the anarchy, but seriously, just stop. Having stupid political beliefs based solely on naivity and ignorance doesn't make you any more punx0r.

Now, in this forum we get a lot of kiddies making threads about anarchism, the body text consisting solely of a message similar to "ANARCHY!!!!!!!!" or "ANARKY IS LIFE!!!!!!!!!", with little or no understanding of what anarchism actually is. Or you'll get what appears to be a thought out statement from an anarchist as to why anarchism would work. Appears to be. Basically to support anarchism you have to suspend a lot of logic, deny any facts that don't support your opinions, and above all, be extremely naive to the darker side of human nature.

So from now on, any and all anarchy threads that are not considered worthy of discussion will be locked and/or deleted. Thank you for your time in reading this, and hope these OMFG RULEZ outrage and infuriate your anarchic little minds.

wheelchairman
08-21-2005, 02:59 PM
Sticky this please. Sticky.

wheaty
08-21-2005, 09:19 PM
Okay, I understand that you kids listen to punk rawk, and punk is all about the anarchy, but seriously, just stop. Having stupid political beliefs based solely on naivity and ignorance doesn't make you any more punx0r.

Now, in this forum we get a lot of kiddies making threads about anarchism, the body text consisting solely of a message similar to "ANARCHY!!!!!!!!" or "ANARKY IS LIFE!!!!!!!!!", with little or no understanding of what anarchism actually is. Or you'll get what appears to be a thought out statement from an anarchist as to why anarchism would work. Appears to be. Basically to support anarchism you have to suspend a lot of logic, deny any facts that don't support your opinions, and above all, be extremely naive to the darker side of human nature.

So from now on, any and all anarchy threads that are not considered worthy of discussion will be locked and/or deleted. Thank you for your time in reading this, and hope these OMFG RULEZ outrage and infuriate your anarchic little minds.
It is people and Idealisms like this that have FUCKED ppl over. People should be entitled to have a reasonable talk about what they wish as long as it is intellegent. For the sake of good conversation please do not delet any of these threads due to one or two IDIOTS

Anya82
08-21-2005, 11:01 PM
but she's not saying that she will delete EVERY anarchy thread, she's saying that all those "i'm a oh-so-cool anarchist" threads with no sense or point of discussion will be deleted.

If you want to talk about that topic, it's okay, as long as you are not one of those just posting a thread with a "AnArKy RuLeZ" sentence and nothing more than that.

NOAMR
08-22-2005, 05:08 AM
Well, I'm half and half accord with her. I'm an anarchist, and I don't think finding anarchism something good is naieve... But I also think there are a lot off topics about anarchism here, mostly with only people posting who don't know what anarchism is. I think one topic about anarchism is enough, so another topic about anarchism can be deleted. But I don't think you schould close one off the topics, cuz there is allready a discussion there. Okay, it's everywhere kinda the same, but I hope just one will stay in the running.

Sin Studly
08-22-2005, 08:50 AM
But you have no idea what kind of a monstrous wave of bitching this will create.

So? The summary dismissal of all such complaints is a true testament to the fact that anarchism will never work. Specifically, it shows that complaining isn't a medium for social change, and hence whining bitches (ie; anarchists) will always be ignored. Always.


People should be entitled to have a reasonable talk about what they wish as long as it is intellegent.

This excludes all discussion in support of anarchism.


people who don't know what anarchism is.

Translated ; People who support it.

Sinister
08-22-2005, 08:59 AM
uh oh I just saw a thread that's about to be crashed (up first on new posts pages when I checked last.)

ruroken
08-22-2005, 10:34 AM
I know nothing of politics and so....uh....yeah...

Satanic_Surfer
08-22-2005, 04:13 PM
There is a thread, since last night that has been up, called "The means of Libertarian Socialism" and for those who love to critisize Anarchism, i guess i need to explain that Libertarian Socialism is "Anarchism". And for those who wants to atcually have someone to critisize with the anti-Anarchy stuff, do it there. It aint hard unless you avoid to beaten by words yourself, of course! ;)

HornyPope
08-23-2005, 10:54 AM
What i'm wondering is why you. Sim, even address the idiots! Who gives a shit? Let them post whatever anarchy topics they want. It bothers us not the slightest.

the_GoDdEsS
08-23-2005, 01:22 PM
It doesn't really. But then again why post it when you have nothing to say and don't know anything to say but 'ANARCHY rUlEs' and 'it's lyke so kewl because Dexter has Anarchy Airlines and I'm so punk for saying this'?

Sinister
08-23-2005, 01:23 PM
It doesn't really. But then again why post it when you have nothing to say and don't know anything to say but 'ANARCHY rUlEs' and 'it's lyke so kewl because Dexter has Anarchy Airlines and I'm so punk for saying this'?

maybe some so-called "anarchists" see a point in doing this. I don't.

but honestly... who gives a fuck ?

wheaty
08-23-2005, 11:01 PM
What the hell is an anarcy airline?

NOAMR
08-24-2005, 10:17 AM
She talks about the fact that Dexter has an anarchy sign on his private airplane.

shadowind
08-24-2005, 02:52 PM
anarchy is a dream
an impossible dream

wheaty
08-24-2005, 09:53 PM
She talks about the fact that Dexter has an anarchy sign on his private airplane.
Ooh ok thx

NOAMR
08-25-2005, 06:26 AM
anarchy is a dream
an impossible dream

Could be, but what it wrong with making the dream a bit more reality?

Sin Studly
08-25-2005, 11:42 AM
The "impossible" part, dumbfuck.

NOAMR
08-25-2005, 02:39 PM
The "impossible" part, dumbfuck.

It isn't impossible to make it more reality, to have less rule, what my point was which you couldn't even understand.

NOAMR
08-25-2005, 02:50 PM
Oh, and I just wonna say that I don't think it was a good idea to close the topic. What was sayed in the beginning had no real value for the discussion after it, and I could still react a lot on Sin Studly's post(okay, he was quite annoying, but he always is). It's exally a good question (Would you like to live in an Anarchist World), cuz it gets away the argument whether it would be possible.

Sin Studly
08-25-2005, 03:04 PM
It shouldn't be argued because it's a foregone conclusion. Stop arguing for anarchy, everybody with half a brain knows you're all just fucking jokes.

shadowind
08-25-2005, 03:30 PM
Could be, but what it wrong with making the dream a bit more reality?

depends on who your giving the freedoms to..

wheaty
08-25-2005, 10:17 PM
Thank you Godess for closing that other thread :)

Kerr
08-26-2005, 02:37 AM
I believe that it hasn't been mentioned yet.

This "hardcore" attitude that 14-year-old fucktards seem to posess is obviously not anarchism at all. Anarchy is actually a peaceful political movement where there are no people in charge at all - there is freedom from leaders or dictators. However, that doesn't mean that society is very disorderly - it is believed that people in an anarchic nation actually negotiate with each other to make society a good place, just without leaders. Although people would obviously use it to their advantage to do what they wanted.

What is often misinterpreted about Anarchy is that it is rebellious - it isn't. Anarchy got that reputation from NIHILISM; originally from some Russian Revolution in the 1860's (I think...) when Nihilists read a book on rejection of all traditional values and authority, often very destructive. This hardcore act that 14-year-olds put on is representative of this, and not anarchy.

Correct me if I am wrong on any factual points I stated in this post.

RXP
08-26-2005, 02:44 AM
This thread has caused more spam because Fenton thinks it's funny to spam anarchy.

Kerr
08-26-2005, 02:49 AM
This thread has caused more spam because Fenton thinks it's funny to spam anarchy.
I admit, I did find the abartion spamming funny, and his sarcasm towards t3h hardc0rn355 was also quite funny.

NOAMR
08-26-2005, 06:13 AM
depends on who your giving the freedoms to..

Well, anarchism is basicly against such social determination, to say 'you can have the freedom, you not', to just wonna 'make' society how you want it, like you are a god. I would simply try to have no leaders or authority on the lowest levels(like starting a company with no boss and not busy with 'ruling over' other company's, but more like work together with it and make/do what the other company's don't have yet. Or start a school with no director, and teachers who let the children find out themselfs what they think is interesting, without punishing or having to be the best, but making them self-responsible. Well, there are allready schools like that). And meanwhile, I would try to make the powers of the government smaller(so protest if they do something bad, and let the 'democracy' deminilize it).

T-6005
08-26-2005, 10:05 AM
like starting a company with no boss and not busy with 'ruling over' other company's,

A company? Isn't the point of a company to create something or to provide a service of some sort? I see no point to providing a service if the company is not receiving anything in exchange. So who decides what to provide and how? Do you really think that people will always agree on what to produce and when? Or for who? You'll have conflict within that, and not all conflict can be resolved by reasonable argument... and even if it could, after a while there would be time for nothing else. The solution? A boss!

And companies try to maximize profit - that will bring competition, which I believe you characterize as "ruling over" other companies.

And a school with no director, and teachers who teach the children what they want to know? Do you really think it would be possible to find someone qualified enough to teach everything a child wanted to know? Who would train these people? There would need to be more teachers than students - each student wants to know something different from day to day, and no instructor could ever cover such a wide range.

Whatever - your arguments are absolutely ridiculous is basically the only point I have.

Sin Studly
08-27-2005, 02:44 AM
They hate the fact that people rip on their arguments for being ridiculous. They claim you're "just name-calling and not arguing properly". But seriously, with arguments as retarded as the ones they provide, how can you not ridicule them, they're fucking insanely stupid.

NOAMR
08-27-2005, 04:16 AM
A company? Isn't the point of a company to create something or to provide a service of some sort? I see no point to providing a service if the company is not receiving anything in exchange. So who decides what to provide and how? Do you really think that people will always agree on what to produce and when? Or for who? You'll have conflict within that, and not all conflict can be resolved by reasonable argument... and even if it could, after a while there would be time for nothing else. The solution? A boss!

Off course the company will get something in exchange. Right now, that would prolly be money. What they want to produce is just a problem for the beginning, and I think that discussing could allready solve that problem, or otherwise voting. The company won't be that big. I think that once it's started, you just do what is agreed, there isn't need for so much discussing. And eciding for who? Just for who-ever want it.


And companies try to maximize profit - that will bring competition, which I believe you characterize as "ruling over" other companies.

I don't think competition is need, the company will simply produce what is need and so that other company's don't have yet in the area they produce for. So they more work together with other company's, and try to make the competition as small as possible. They just make what is need, and make sure they can pay the production and also earn something thereselfs, but they don't need to maximize profit. Off course, there could be an economical or something who calculate things, but no-one has power to say what people HAVE TO do.


And a school with no director, and teachers who teach the children what they want to know? Do you really think it would be possible to find someone qualified enough to teach everything a child wanted to know? Who would train these people? There would need to be more teachers than students - each student wants to know something different from day to day, and no instructor could ever cover such a wide range.

Whatever - your arguments are absolutely ridiculous is basically the only point I have.

I went to a school with no director. We learned self-supporting on our own speed. We had a brach called 'project', where we could choose a subject ourselfs and had to search up things about it with the whole class. The teacher didn't know so much about it neither, but we learned to learn by ourselfs, and find the best information. I also think students schould be able to choose what they want to follow faster, so that for example someone can allready learn a lot of science from an early age(as soon as they know what interests them). People will also graduate faster and been able to do a job then. So I don't think that there schould be more teachers, it will just be more individual.

And how can my points be ridiculous if they are based on real life? If that's all you can argue, that isn't a lot and isn't really good for a discussion. And Sin: you brings nothing to the discussion, maybe I use bad arguments, but you don't even use them.

T-6005
08-27-2005, 05:30 AM
I have a question for you - how many people do you think would rather slave away all day to create a product which will then be taken away rather than be one of the takers?

If I remember correctly, Sin was trying to make you comprehend the ease with which a human being can recognize the potential in acquiring something for nothing. You seem to think that people will magically appear out of nowhere proclaiming "Hey, I've decided that I want to be a factory worker!" or "I've really decided that sweeping the streets is what makes me feel whole! Because of course we're in a non-governed society, and I've finally realized that I hated being someone's boss, and that I'd much rather contribute to society in this debased station!"


I went to a school with no director. We learned self-supporting on our own speed.

That's not really shocking news, considering your arguments. You didn't learn much.

Sin Studly
08-27-2005, 06:25 AM
And how can my points be ridiculous if they are based on real life? If that's all you can argue, that isn't a lot and isn't really good for a discussion. And Sin: you brings nothing to the discussion, maybe I use bad arguments, but you don't even use them.

They're not based on real life, they're based on fantasies. This is all I can argue, because nothing you say is grounded in reality, and you don't even deserve to be taken seriously.


That's not really shocking news, considering your arguments. You didn't learn much.

CLASS! Oh, and NOAMR, I dropped out of school early and since then I've taught myself a lot because I've been interested enough to learn on my own. This is nothing special. Lot's of people choose to educate themselves. But do you honestly think anybodies going to shovel other peoples shit because they choose to?

T-6005
08-27-2005, 06:51 AM
But do you honestly think anybodies going to shovel other peoples shit because they choose to?

That's basically what I've been trying to say.

shadowind
08-27-2005, 11:23 AM
anarchy is possible

if your talking about an imaginary race of humans (or some other animal that can reason) that don't have people like me

Sin Studly
08-27-2005, 11:25 AM
That's basically what I've been trying to say.

I know. And no matter how succinctly we phrase it, they'll never understand. Because they want Anarchy to be possible, and to hell with reality, reality can change to suit them.

Fucking idiot anarchists, they should all be put against the wall.

NOAMR
08-27-2005, 02:49 PM
I have a question for you - how many people do you think would rather slave away all day to create a product which will then be taken away rather than be one of the takers?

Well, I first off all think the production will be more humanly based, so they won't have to work their ass off for some money they doesn't even have time for to spend. There will be a balance between needfull work and free time. Second, people won't be able to just take products, if no-one produce, there won't be any, and if some doesn't want to distribute anything, they won't get much. Working together is simply needfully to make a society run.


If I remember correctly, Sin was trying to make you comprehend the ease with which a human being can recognize the potential in acquiring something for nothing. You seem to think that people will magically appear out of nowhere proclaiming "Hey, I've decided that I want to be a factory worker!" or "I've really decided that sweeping the streets is what makes me feel whole! Because of course we're in a non-governed society, and I've finally realized that I hated being someone's boss, and that I'd much rather contribute to society in this debased station!"

Again: it will simply be needfully. Or by money, or just by the community who doesn't give anything to the profitor, people will be 'forced' to do something for the society. And they will do what they like the most.



That's not really shocking news, considering your arguments. You didn't learn much.

I personnally think I learned a lot by it, I learned to be responsible and independ. And right now I'm in a 'normal' school, and I have never had any problems.

And Sin: try to look a bit further, if you try to think I think you will see the school thing is based on real life.

And again and again: even if anarchy isn't possible(people are really following sheeps who don't really think for themselfs but just follow an authority often), it doesn't make it bad. I think an authority is bad, cuz he forces HIS point of view on others, with violence. Power corrupts, and violence create violence.

Sin Studly
08-27-2005, 03:56 PM
Oh Christ on a cracker, just stop trying to argue, you're a living example of the fact that human beings are too fucking stupid to self-govern.

Punk 102
08-29-2005, 03:33 PM
Plus the idea of leaving the whole world without teachers in school is bull, because there is an ass load of kids who would just take that opportunity to not go to school at all. After all, nobody would make them go in the first place. Next thing you know with all the uneducated fucktards running around, no civility would exist at all... anarchy = no.

Preocupado
08-29-2005, 06:21 PM
Plus the idea of leaving the whole world without teachers in school is bull, because there is an ass load of kids who would just take that opportunity to not go to school at all. After all, nobody would make them go in the first place. Next thing you know with all the uneducated fucktards running around, no civility would exist at all... anarchy = no.


You have to review the whole social and cultural situations too before making such types of assumption about what people would do in anarchy. It's not just to look at it like only the rules change but people have the same behaviour.

NOAMR
08-30-2005, 06:08 AM
Plus the idea of leaving the whole world without teachers in school is bull, because there is an ass load of kids who would just take that opportunity to not go to school at all. After all, nobody would make them go in the first place. Next thing you know with all the uneducated fucktards running around, no civility would exist at all... anarchy = no.

HEUH? WHERE DID I say there wouldn't be any teachers??? Off course there would, people who allready know about a subject and so teach it to others. But that others will have more freedom to learn what they think is interesting. And parents will prolly still motivate their children to go to school. Plus, if you wonna survive and have a job, their is much chance you have to go to school to learn it.

And what would you define as 'civility'? This hypocrite world with his strict morals while killing people by war or poverty-making in other countries and lying and manipulating is promoted? Or all our technology which allows us to do more but gives us stress and makes is more unhappy? What we have from technology won't go away suddenly.

brothadave79
08-30-2005, 06:42 PM
Just give it up, man. Anarchy is just a farce. Ideas like anarchy coincidentally seem to be more popular with people like students who don't have much experience in the real world.

brothadave79
08-31-2005, 12:46 PM
and stop talking to pathetic individuals who don't know what they are talking about!

Thanks. What was I thinking?

NOAMR
09-01-2005, 07:52 AM
Look, I know what I'm talking about, I've read some books etc about anarchism, but they aren't much people here who know something about it. There isn't been a good argument for days here. I look to the real world, but with some perception, I don't just take everything the media says. I mean, if you look to this world, you see all problems are there because people rule over other people, or that people who start to rule others cuz they are oppressed. So I think it is kinda logical to be against rule.

wheelchairman
09-01-2005, 09:39 AM
You don't know anything about anarchism. I've read your posts. You should study a bit more. Especially on the theoretical parts.

shadowind
09-01-2005, 03:00 PM
Look, I know what I'm talking about, I've read some books etc about anarchism, but they aren't much people here who know something about it. There isn't been a good argument for days here. I look to the real world, but with some perception, I don't just take everything the media says. I mean, if you look to this world, you see all problems are there because people rule over other people, or that people who start to rule others cuz they are oppressed. So I think it is kinda logical to be against rule.

it is human nature to lead/follow
+ in the words of my world hist. teacher
"monarchys were created becuse they are easy...
all animals goes in the way of least resitence"or something around there
of course there are exceptions but for the most part he was right
to have someone live in a anachy place would require that person to have alot of self control something people don't have enough of right now

SicN Twisted
09-01-2005, 03:43 PM
Sim, you can't let a bunch of stupid limosine punks represent all anarchist beliefs. I'm an anarchist, and I definately wouldn't say my believes are devoid of logic and stupid.

Sin Studly
09-02-2005, 09:18 AM
I would. I remember your self righteous naive bullshit about it being impossible for the police to do their job if they're at all corrupt.

NOAMR
09-02-2005, 12:22 PM
it is human nature to lead/follow
+ in the words of my world hist. teacher
"monarchys were created becuse they are easy...
all animals goes in the way of least resitence"or something around there
of course there are exceptions but for the most part he was right
to have someone live in a anachy place would require that person to have alot of self control something people don't have enough of right now

So because it is human nature to follow( and so they are a lot off people who do it), it is wrong to be against it? I think that if they are no leaders to follow anymore, people will have to count on themselfs. It's possible that they start to follow a new leader(what happened in the past). But I also think that the biggest problem isn't people who want power(and so become a leader), but all the sheeps who follow them.
And yes, animals have some leaderstructures when they live in group, but I don't think it is as much as with people, where the Leader forbid things for the others etc. And people can allready make more choices for their own and have a more developed brain then animals.
I remember that Kropotkin made a study where he finds out that the mutual aid, helping each other spontaneous, is also important for the evolution, perhaps even more than the egoistic 'survival of the fittest'. He visited some primitive stams and animals, and saw it was more present there. But modern society, based on concurention etc, had destroyed a lot of it.

Sin Studly
09-03-2005, 04:50 AM
Arguments like that are weak because they're based on what humans could do, and not what they probably would do.

No, they're impossible because they're based on what a human could do, not what they probably would do. Humans would never, ever, EVER do anything of the sort.

PXR
09-07-2005, 06:48 AM
Look at what happens when a disaster happens. Humans start raping girls and shooting at rescue vehicles. Humans are scum. We deserve to be exploited by the rich because we are no better than them if we had their power.

In the end the only thing that may set a global revolution off is a cataclysmic event, such as climate change. Recent events, however, have made me believe this won't lead to a happier existence but a worse off one where a super power who's semi fair cannot police the world and it will run riot.

Nomar, Sic, WCM have lots of faith in the human race. I thought I was having faith back again too, I was even arguing against people who think humans are all selfish cunts but every disaster small or large I look at shows me humans are fucking scum. Even when they rally round like after 9/11 they have to find a common enemy to obliterate. It's sad

NOAMR
09-07-2005, 07:33 AM
Okay, humans are scum etc, but when they get power, they can use it 100 times worse. When they doesn't have power, society(so the whole group, not someone in power), could stop 'm by the disadvandages he has(like now, but without an autority and less universal/more with an individual look). Prolly there would still be some problems, but it won't be that bad as when someone has total power and liberty to do whatever he wants with a total area/group of people.

NOAMR
09-07-2005, 01:06 PM
Well, firstly: it isn't original to quote someone else, it's like you doesn't have an own opinion. And second: I don't think you've understand my argument, that was: 'humans can be evil, but if they are in power, they can use it more and so it's 100 times worse'. That hasn't anything to do with what they could do, but with what they do.

Norwegian Cat
09-07-2005, 01:26 PM
The post I quoted was a minor correction on one sentece in a good sized paragraph I made a few posts earlier. If you want my opinion, read it. It's obvious you're just going to give one sided arguments of 'well, people could do this, and they could do that'. You're entire stance on anarchy is way too utopian to work, and relies on humanity being a lot less criminal than it is now. Hell, if human nature were that perfect to begin with, we wouldn't've developed a need for government in the first place.

That's true, but today's utopia is tomorrow's achievement.

shadowind
09-07-2005, 05:40 PM
people will still make stupid decisons if you let them do what ever they want becuse they want what they want and they will do what they want if nobody is able to stop them its as simple as that and when somebody does try to stop them they will retailate(sp) so it would be never ending war agains clans and gangs of people (gangs/clans will enventully form after they spilt up into groups with the same values ext.)

NOAMR
09-09-2005, 08:37 AM
The post I quoted was a minor correction on one sentece in a good sized paragraph I made a few posts earlier. If you want my opinion, read it. It's obvious you're just going to give one sided arguments of 'well, people could do this, and they could do that'. You're entire stance on anarchy is way too utopian to work, and relies on humanity being a lot less criminal than it is now. Hell, if human nature were that perfect to begin with, we wouldn't've developed a need for government in the first place.

Well, I think you schould read my post 'bout 'leaders who do 100 time worse crimes' again. Cuz you just say the same again and again.Humans have developed true history( we can better and more responsible choose then in the prehistory, when we lived in caves). It's easier for a lot off people to be lead, and they are also people who like the power, but that doesn't mean we can't have no leaders.


people will still make stupid decisons if you let them do what ever they want becuse they want what they want and they will do what they want if nobody is able to stop them its as simple as that and when somebody does try to stop them they will retailate(sp) so it would be never ending war agains clans and gangs of people (gangs/clans will enventully form after they spilt up into groups with the same values ext.)

I think you mean that to stop people making 'stupid' or bad-for-society decisions, there will be force and violence, and that leads to gangs. Well, that's how it is today, and a big difference with anarchism: they won't use violence anymore to stp violence, but instead they will try to understand the person and talk in to him, and use mutual (un)aid.

T-6005
09-09-2005, 11:01 AM
they won't use violence anymore to stp violence, but instead they will try to understand the person and talk in to him, and use mutual (un)aid.

Why wouldn't they resort to violence? That's retarded - violence is easy to use, solves the immediate problem, and without any legal system, there are no repercussions. Someone else not like it? You just threaten them into cooperation. How hard can it be?


It's easier for a lot off people to be lead, and they are also people who like the power, but that doesn't mean we can't have no leaders.

Of course it means we can't have a leaderless society, you shithead. If the two types of people you describe really exist, then those who seek out authority will naturally gravitate to those who want authority - and since at that point there will be NO authority present, then it'll bloody well happen. The power vacuum will be filled in one way or another.

GD1989
09-09-2005, 11:30 AM
i've never liked anarchy but it really doesnt matter to me

T-6005
09-09-2005, 01:29 PM
Why the fuck did you bother posting that?

NOAMR
09-10-2005, 05:11 AM
Why wouldn't they resort to violence? That's retarded - violence is easy to use, solves the immediate problem, and without any legal system, there are no repercussions. Someone else not like it? You just threaten them into cooperation. How hard can it be?

Well, it's also possible to do it without, and that is when there is anarchism. Okay, it is 'easiest' to do it with violence like today, but not the best on long term. If there is violence, someone rules over someone else, so that isn't anarchism. Try to pay attention, I sayed that allready a lot.




Of course it means we can't have a leaderless society, you shithead. If the two types of people you describe really exist, then those who seek out authority will naturally gravitate to those who want authority - and since at that point there will be NO authority present, then it'll bloody well happen. The power vacuum will be filled in one way or another.

Again: I never sayed anarchism can happen today, only that it is the best. I was aying why leaders came into live, but we have allready evoluated and hopefully have less of these characteristics. I just personnally will never follow an autority, but think for myself what is good and bad, and I also will never be an autority. If you also try it, and others try it, we can live together in anarchy. So just start with yourself, cuz everyone is saying 'people are to dumb and they follow an autorian like sheeps', but they do it themselfs.

Sin Studly
09-10-2005, 06:02 AM
Well, it's also possible to do it without, and that is when there is anarchism.

It's possible for a person not to resort to violence. But people are going to kill, rape, maim and batter, often for no reason other than the sheer enjoyment of doing it. Open your fucking eyes, tard.

NOAMR
09-10-2005, 08:52 AM
It's possible for a person not to resort to violence. But people are going to kill, rape, maim and batter, often for no reason other than the sheer enjoyment of doing it. Open your fucking eyes, tard.

People won't do it just for the enjoy off it, cuz off the consequences(for themselfs and the victim; remember what I allready sayed 'bout mutual (un)aid etc) off it. If they do it, there is a good reason for it, and so they are oppressed(byt the victim or someone/thing else). In true anarchism there isn't any oppression from the beginning, and so it would happen. But I know true anarchism will never happen, just like true communism, socialism, stalinism, nazism, fascism... will never happen. People are too different for that.

Sin Studly
09-10-2005, 09:17 AM
So the reason twelve-year-olds get hard-ons while they tear the limbs off helpless animals is because the government oppresses them?

Stop being a fucking idiot.

the_GoDdEsS
09-10-2005, 09:20 AM
Sin raised a good point, I think. Humans are completely messed up. You need to understand psychology. Imagine you're holding a cute little fragile bird in your hands and you know you wouldn't harm it but some inner voice tells you 'What if I did?'. Everyone has it. It's just a matter of choice between what's apparently 'good' and what's 'bad' and both of those terms are relative too. People would do that to each other, no doubt about that.

PXR
09-10-2005, 09:53 AM
Unless they force some kind of behavioral drug on the entire world, his anarchic utopia is a daydream.

Watch the finale of series 4 of Alias. This is exactly what happens.

shadowind
09-10-2005, 10:13 AM
in order for there to be anarchy the human mind has to change alot otherwise people will take advantage of it and i don't see us changing any time here soon

wheelchairman
09-10-2005, 10:20 AM
When people use the words "true (something)-ism" you can tell their argument is full of shit, 9 times out of 10.

NOAMR
09-10-2005, 10:52 AM
So the reason twelve-year-olds get hard-ons while they tear the limbs off helpless animals is because the government oppresses them?

Stop being a fucking idiot.


Never sayed all oppression is by the government. The reason they would do it is or grouppressure(wanting to make you popular with it and kids saying 'do you dare to do it?'), or cuz they doesn't see the consequences. But when the other kids/parents say: 'you are a cold ; coward bastard to harm someone who can't even to defend themself' and let 'm lose popularity etc, the kid will feel guilty.


And yes Godess, when people have power over someone, they want to use it. Whether it is an animal, a person or a race, people have an instinct to misuse power. But that is why we schould behold people from having power. The more power to one person, the more cruel the regime is, look at fascism. We could stop the instinct if they are a lot off disadvandages from it.

the_GoDdEsS
09-10-2005, 11:48 AM
Somehow anarchism manages to ignore the basic sociological and psychological truths about humanity.

Sin Studly
09-10-2005, 12:40 PM
Never sayed all oppression is by the government. The reason they would do it is or grouppressure(wanting to make you popular with it and kids saying 'do you dare to do it?'), or cuz they doesn't see the consequences. But when the other kids/parents say: 'you are a cold ; coward bastard to harm someone who can't even to defend themself' and let 'm lose popularity etc, the kid will feel guilty.

No, they do it because they're sick fucks and it turns them on. And kids like that aren't usually overly concerned about popularity. Do you even fucking know what a 'sociopath' is? How the hell are you supposed to stop a sociopath from slitting throats all over the place by 'socially ostracising them and making them unpopular'?

You're the worst kind of idiot. What the hell kind of background were you raised in?

NOAMR
09-11-2005, 11:07 AM
Okay, a couple of replies to all of you who posted after me(so that no-one feel discriminated):

This Thread Is Gay: I never sayed anarchism can work by sure, but the more it is there, the better it is I guess. I'm sure you can stop people from doing something 'bad' without violence.

the_GoDdEsS: we(anarchists) don't just accept what some professor or someone else sayes, but we try to think for ourselfs and learn by experience. It has never been so much investigated how much solidarity and responsibility etc people have, cuz it isn't good for todays society and original thinking is discouraged, while competition is promoted.


Sin Studly: Not every kid who do that is a 'sociopath...', but then they don't see the consequences. They usally do it cuz they feel lonely, a social outcast and not being understand by anyone. They're angry with the world and feel small(oppressed), but if they hurt a poor animal, they feel power. How you could help them is trying to understand him and not bringing him in freightning situations for'm. If they know that someone like 'm and don't lauch with 'm, he'll feel good and won't do it. But when a guy like you laugh with 'm all the time and call 'm a 'stupid retard' or something like that and most people laugh with 'm, it's normal he gets angry.

the_GoDdEsS
09-11-2005, 11:30 AM
the_GoDdEsS: we(anarchists) don't just accept what some professor or someone else sayes, but we try to think for ourselfs and learn by experience. It has never been so much investigated how much solidarity and responsibility etc people have, cuz it isn't good for todays society and original thinking is discouraged, while competition is promoted.


That's a contradictory statement because if you learnt from experience you would know anarchy will not work, ever.

Sin Studly
09-11-2005, 11:34 AM
You're the worst kind of idiot. What the hell kind of background were you raised in?

Don't dodge the question.

And answer me this, how does learning from the experience of being a fucking stupid middle-class white idiot with no concept of reality teach you anything, let alone enough to make you feel you have the right to tell the rest of the world how they should live?

PXR
09-11-2005, 12:18 PM
The same thing that gives current leaders the right to tell me how to live.

Sin Studly
09-11-2005, 12:23 PM
No, that's political power. Something NOAMR lacks.

Seiraryu
09-11-2005, 03:27 PM
Damn.

The more things change...

Too bad most of what's being said in this thread contradicts the requests made my Goddess on the first post. 's alright, though, I'm just passing through for now.

*Whistles.*

leavesonline
09-11-2005, 06:56 PM
how does learning from the experience of being a fucking stupid middle-class white idiot with no concept of reality teach you anything, let alone enough to make you feel you have the right to tell the rest of the world how they should live?

Quite simple this one - it teaches you how to be as bland, mediocre and ignorant as possible, thus providing perfect political background and a disproportionate ego...

PXR
09-12-2005, 01:52 AM
I'd say I've had a pretty middle class upbringing but am not like the middle class stereotype. I even went to a private school.

theUnholyNihgtbrnger
09-12-2005, 05:06 PM
thats what I was thinking!

Dexter Powerhead
09-13-2005, 02:39 PM
agree..............................anarchy is just a way of life............not a politic ideal............anarchy fight against the values of the modern society..............trying to build a new society without any kind of organisation or institution just cos if anarchy get success the human race could govern themselves..............but we need three things impossible today.......... solidarity+respect+ justice=freedom(anarchy)

wheelchairman
09-13-2005, 03:04 PM
agree..............................anarchy is just a way of life............not a politic ideal............anarchy fight against the values of the modern society..............trying to build a new society without any kind of organisation or institution just cos if anarchy get success the human race could govern themselves..............but we need three things impossible today.......... solidarity+respect+ justice=freedom(anarchy)
The way I read this in my head, it just sounds like a shitty perfume commericial.

"Essence of Anarchy, a way of life. More than an ideal. Rebelion."

Preocupado
09-14-2005, 03:12 AM
couldn't resist

http://g2.gigafoto.com.br/2005/09/14/3307328.jpg

wheelchairman
09-14-2005, 04:34 AM
haha awesome

NOAMR
09-14-2005, 04:57 AM
That's a contradictory statement because if you learnt from experience you would know anarchy will not work, ever.

Who are you to say it wouldn't work? You act like you know The Thruth, how can you know how this world will evoluate? If you would be a cave(wo)man, would you have tought all the technology, thinking and knowledge off today's world could exist?
And I don't say it will work today, but I look to this world and see how the media and politics control our brain. All bad happening is a misuge off power, the hiërarchic system only brings a system of egoism, oppression... People don't question authority or think for themselfs, but do whatever is asked to them like sheeps. I don't wonna be a sheep and don't want that leaders oppress people.

NOAMR
09-14-2005, 05:11 AM
Don't dodge the question.

And answer me this, how does learning from the experience of being a fucking stupid middle-class white idiot with no concept of reality teach you anything, let alone enough to make you feel you have the right to tell the rest of the world how they should live?


Sry, I forgotted the question you seem to like so much. I allready telled something about my primary school before. Well, my parents aren't for punishing are setting rules, but for letting you comprehend why something is bad(which can also be enerving, if you want to do something(mostly something which most parents just forbid), they just start to argue why you schouldn't and jaw, so that you don't know it anymore). Right now I'm in the last year off High School, following Science-Math. Now, what education... have you got to be such a fascist?

And I don't say how the rest off the world schould live their live, that's contrary to anarchism. Anarchism is against leaders... who say how people schould live their live, saying they can't use drugs, stop their live when they are seriously sick, religious leaders who sa you schouldn't have sex before mariage... Anarchism leaves all oppurtinities open, if you wonna follow a leader on free choice in anarchism, you can. But you can't obligate others to do so or oppress them any way. But we(anarchists) schould have the possibility to live how we want. Their would be a world of experiments, searching what is the best(most equal) economic for all...

And the only concept of reality you have is the mainstream vision brought up by the media, you have no idea what happens in the 'lowest classes' of society. Illegals put in 'closed centrums', which is exally just a prison, firstly 'arrested' without even been able to bring their stuffs to the prison and afterwards their homeland..., just cuz they lived on the wrong side. In their homelands, they are used so that we have are luxeproducts. Other people who are discriminated every day, also by the police. Palestina's in Gaza who couldn't even go to the beach a couple of meters away, their houses could be destroyed are taken by military's every minute.

Sin Studly
09-14-2005, 06:55 AM
Right now I'm in the last year off High School

Translated ; I know absolutely nothing, and my views are worthless. Please don't pay any attention to anything I say, ever, because I assure you, it will be worthless tripe and do nothing but waste your precious time.

wheelchairman
09-14-2005, 09:39 AM
And the only concept of reality you have is the mainstream vision brought up by the media, you have no idea what happens in the 'lowest classes' of society. Illegals put in 'closed centrums', which is exally just a prison, firstly 'arrested' without even been able to bring their stuffs to the prison and afterwards their homeland..., just cuz they lived on the wrong side. In their homelands, they are used so that we have are luxeproducts. Other people who are discriminated every day, also by the police. Palestina's in Gaza who couldn't even go to the beach a couple of meters away, their houses could be destroyed are taken by military's every minute.
This is my favorite line. Do *you* have any idea what happens in the lowest of society? Do you know what it's like to live off welfare? Do chose not to eat some days so that you can eat on others?

Sin Studly
09-14-2005, 10:07 AM
As somebody who's spent years on welfare, and has over a dozen friends or relatives who've served time, I must reiterate that NOAMR's existence sickens me.

shadowind
09-14-2005, 03:08 PM
saying they can't use drugs, stop their live when they are seriously sick, religious leaders who sa you schouldn't have sex before mariage... Anarchism leaves all oppurtinities open, if you wonna follow a leader on free choice in anarchism, you can. But you can't obligate others to do so or oppress them any way. But we(anarchists) schould have the possibility to live how we want. Their would be a world of experiments, searching what is the best(most equal) economic for all...

And the only concept of reality you have is the mainstream vision brought up by the media, you have no idea what happens in the 'lowest classes' of society.

the concept of reality i have is the reality i have aquired through my exp. on this earth and it is the gov. duty to the people to provide security to thier people, there is proof that illegal drugs are harmfull proof that over powers any that says they are good for you thats why they are illegal the gov. is doing it duty. freedom and security conflicts with each other. sex before you can take care of a kid is just inresponsible. i don't want thier to be equallity in the since that no one will have an Advantage over some one else.
most people should be treated equally and have the same political and civil rights.

Norwegian Cat
09-16-2005, 04:31 AM
Proudhon: "To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

Dexter Powerhead
09-16-2005, 08:59 AM
couldn't resist

http://g2.gigafoto.com.br/2005/09/14/3307328.jpg

yeah awesome.........................but............... .......fuck you both

T-6005
09-16-2005, 04:15 PM
Proudhon: "To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

To not be governed is to give an opportunity to the lowlifes of the earth to do whatever the hell they want.

Anyways - NOAMR, you're looking for a society that will absolutely NEVER exist. You should have paid more attention to Goddess's post and where it mentions - I think - basic psychology. Read up on how people act, man - then maybe you'll understand why anarchy will NEVER work. Not now, not in the near future, not ever. The only people who are willing to give anarchy a go are people who are both possessed by some disproportionate utopic vision and people who can't understand the simple concept that people WILL take advantage of each other when they can. Probably because they've grown up in an environment where they've never had to want for anything, and so figure "Ah, well, obviously if I can keep from stealing when I have the opportunity to do so, then everyone else will as well!".

Sin Studly
09-16-2005, 08:55 PM
^ All correct.

NOAMR
09-17-2005, 05:34 AM
First the 'you don't know what it is to be on welfare, you don't know where you speak off' argument: you're prolly right, and that's why I can't say how they schould live. The rich politicians also don't know a bit off the reality, so they also schouldn't say what they HAVE to do. I've met some 'illegals' etc on an ex-monastery people have occupied cuz they wanted to destroy it, they're nice people and I've heard some stories etc, so prolly I know a little bit more then the aveage 17-year old who has no financial problems and is in a class full off people like that.
Ow, and Sin, you didn't answer my question yet, tell me your live history.


the concept of reality i have is the reality i have aquired through my exp. on this earth and it is the gov. duty to the people to provide security to thier people, there is proof that illegal drugs are harmfull proof that over powers any that says they are good for you thats why they are illegal the gov. is doing it duty. freedom and security conflicts with each other. sex before you can take care of a kid is just inresponsible. i don't want thier to be equallity in the since that no one will have an Advantage over some one else.
most people should be treated equally and have the same political and civil rights.

These thinks can hurt you(drugs, sex on early age(if you get a kid from it)), and the gov... wonna do it for 'your best', but the best is different per person, so they don't know what is the best for you. They are people who take drugs responsible, they are illegal drugs who harm less( for certain people or in general) then legal drugs. If someone is ready fdor sex and knows what (s)he is doing, you can't forbid it. The most important thing is that they know what they do, that they are responsible. If you always protect them, they won't know a shit about it, and if they get curious/rebelious and wonna experiment, they exagerate and that can bez dangerous.

Sin Studly
09-17-2005, 06:06 AM
Your arguments are retarded. Experiment a little with heroin and methamphetamine, then tell me they should be legalised because people only take them because they're illegal. Go on, inject heroin, just once, then tell me people do it to be t3h badass. You fucking idiot, a shot of dope is like heaven on fucking earth, and if you can walk away after one shot you're inhuman. People don't do shit because it's illegal, they do it because it's fucking heaven. And when you make it to heaven, you don't ever wanna leave.

Stop talking about how government and politics should work, you're a stupid fucking high school student and you know nothing about real life.

NOAMR
09-17-2005, 06:37 AM
Your arguments are retarded. Experiment a little with heroin and methamphetamine, then tell me they should be legalised because people only take them because they're illegal. Go on, inject heroin, just once, then tell me people do it to be t3h badass. You fucking idiot, a shot of dope is like heaven on fucking earth, and if you can walk away after one shot you're inhuman. People don't do shit because it's illegal, they do it because it's fucking heaven. And when you make it to heaven, you don't ever wanna leave.

Stop talking about how government and politics should work, you're a stupid fucking high school student and you know nothing about real life.

So why schould you forbid people to enjoy that heaven? If you know the consequences enough and can hold yourself enough, you know the danger of getting addicted and just stop on time(before it gets a habit). People don't stop taking it because it's illegal, so it doesn't even bring up. But cuz it's illegal, you get in a criminal sphere, it isn't that safe, so their happen more accidents.
And I schouldn't even reply to you, you still have to tell me 'bout your life, or don't you dare? You only dare to judge others, but are too afraid people could also judge your life. Well, tell.

T-6005
09-17-2005, 12:43 PM
So why schould you forbid people to enjoy that heaven? If you know the consequences enough and can hold yourself enough, you know the danger of getting addicted and just stop on time(before it gets a habit). People don't stop taking it because it's illegal, so it doesn't even bring up. But cuz it's illegal, you get in a criminal sphere, it isn't that safe, so their happen more accidents.
And I schouldn't even reply to you, you still have to tell me 'bout your life, or don't you dare? You only dare to judge others, but are too afraid people could also judge your life. Well, tell.

You idiot... do you not get what he's saying? You DONT fucking stop. There's no will to leave, absolutely no want to crash and feel like you're living an existence made bland - you want to feel as if everything in the fucking world is rushing to your head.

That said, I have never done heroin, personally.

But yeah, NOAMR, there's no "stopping on time" about it. Sin can definitely explain it better, and has, but you don't seem to be able to wrap your mind around the finality of what he's describing.

Norwegian Cat
09-17-2005, 01:27 PM
The main objective of anarchism and communsim (correct me if I'm wrong) is to create an egalitarian society, only that communists mean it has to be a progressive change while anarchists mean it must be as soon as possible. This would be a great society, like paradise; It is a great idea, but no one has the same mentality nor the same point of view. There will always be someone who will say that he wants more. Greed and lies make us evil. So anarchy is impossible unless you really want to kick humanity's butt and create a total chaos where rule number one is that the strongest wins. But of course, it is a great idea.

wheelchairman
09-17-2005, 01:27 PM
Communists don't believe in any utopia.

Norwegian Cat
09-17-2005, 01:35 PM
Communists don't believe in any utopia.

OK, I always thought they wanted to create an egalitarian society, but it seems I was wrong....

wheelchairman
09-17-2005, 01:37 PM
We don't fight for equality, we just fight for worker's power and an end to the class struggle.

Norwegian Cat
09-17-2005, 01:46 PM
We don't fight for equality, we just fight for worker's power and an end to the class struggle.

I understand...

And what do you, wheelchairman, think anarchists fight for?

wheelchairman
09-17-2005, 01:48 PM
I understand...

And what do you, wheelchairman, think anarchists fight for?
Anarchists are a broad group. However all groups fight for an elimination of the current state.

T-6005
09-17-2005, 02:04 PM
You'd think we'd have reached the Buddhist Middle Path (as applied to government) by now, with all this pulling in different directions.

thisplacesucks
09-17-2005, 02:54 PM
lol im buddhist. i wish i knew what the hell to do. im just as lost as most people. cristianity (speeling?) seems really easy,right? i go to denver buddhist temple, some1 tell me what to do, find the middle path righjt? like uhhhhhhhhhh guatama or whats his face. poor/rich sick dead all that crap is meaningless. right?

EROS2
09-17-2005, 03:00 PM
lol im buddhist. i wish i knew what the hell to do. im just as lost as most people. cristianity (speeling?) seems really easy,right? i go to denver buddhist temple, some1 tell me what to do, find the middle path righjt? like uhhhhhhhhhh guatama or whats his face. poor/rich sick dead all that crap is meaningless. right?
ok, but why do you think This-place-sucks ?

T-6005
09-17-2005, 03:18 PM
lol im buddhist. i wish i knew what the hell to do. im just as lost as most people. cristianity (speeling?) seems really easy,right? i go to denver buddhist temple, some1 tell me what to do, find the middle path righjt? like uhhhhhhhhhh guatama or whats his face. poor/rich sick dead all that crap is meaningless. right?

You call yourself a Buddhist?

You're an insult to the religion. "Guatama or whats his face"?

Were you actually a Buddhist, I'm sure you could at least take the trouble to know a bit more about Siddartha than that.

thisplacesucks
09-17-2005, 04:22 PM
hye, i was born a buddhist, ive just been going ever since ever. i never really learned much. i dont understand philospophy that well, and its really not that great at all. it always ends up with stupid people getting yelled at by smart people, and smart people yelling at smart people, and it sucks :(

.................no fun at all!

Sin Studly
09-17-2005, 09:03 PM
So why schould you forbid people to enjoy that heaven? If you know the consequences enough and can hold yourself enough, you know the danger of getting addicted and just stop on time(before it gets a habit).

Utter bullshit. The only reason you'll stop before it becomes a habit is if it's illegal, and hence either too expensive for you or too hard to regularly obtain for you to develop a habit. You know nothing about this, so stop having a fucking opinion on it.

Seriously, just stop having opinions. About anything. You know absolutely nothing about anything, you don't deserve to have opinions.

Norwegian Cat
09-18-2005, 08:58 AM
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a100/nocat/uwantanarky.gif

NOAMR
09-19-2005, 09:15 AM
Utter bullshit. The only reason you'll stop before it becomes a habit is if it's illegal, and hence either too expensive for you or too hard to regularly obtain for you to develop a habit. You know nothing about this, so stop having a fucking opinion on it.

Seriously, just stop having opinions. About anything. You know absolutely nothing about anything, you don't deserve to have opinions.

Well, I don't think you will stop cuz it's illegal, maybe you wouldn't start. And if it cost too much, it's a habit, cuz otherwise you could just choose how much you use. I think most people stop cuz they don't want to ruin their family... And well, I also think drugs are bad, but you only increase the problems by making it illegal, it's a free choice that only hurts your own life, and government has no legal power in your life.

Sin Studly
09-20-2005, 12:25 AM
"Well, I don't think you will stop cuz it's illegal, maybe you wouldn't start"

No, but because it's illegal the vast majority of people who use recreationally don't have regular enough access to it to develop a physical habit.

"And if it cost too much, it's a habit, cuz otherwise you could just choose how much you use."

There's a difference between a "The only reason I'm not using is because I can't afford it." habit and a "I can't afford it so I'll fill a syringe with blood and rob a supermarket" habit. And the difference is only a couple days of constant use.

"I think most people stop cuz they don't want to ruin their family..."

Most people stop because they're not actually addicted.

"And well, I also think drugs are bad, but you only increase the problems by making it illegal, it's a free choice that only hurts your own life, and government has no legal power in your life."

Meet somebody on the backend of a six-day meth binge screaming that the Mossad is trying to have them assassinated and trying to stab anybody who comes near them.

And stop having opinions on shit you know nothing about, idiot.

Preocupado
09-20-2005, 04:20 AM
"Art is rooted in an atmosphere of openness and tolerance to flourish and survives underground, determinedly, even when that rich air is not there. So the political context affects it, at the very least. For art is, at its core, about true freedom, about untrammeled speech, unbridled expression of the spiritual and the relentless search of conscience. Art explores our every corner- high, low, sublime and sorry alike; it is the mirror of man. And we in the West have come to see cultural democracy as a right, just like economic and political democracy. It is a right that can be the foundation of change, wherein self-expression is a prerequisite for self-empowerment. In that sense, then, human rights, is at the core of artistic practice, in all its difference and breadth."

I'm hijacking this quote to say that anarchy also could never be an attended reality because it's too attached to art nowadays (don't know about it's history though). The majority of those who value anarchy make the way art -> anarchy, instead of letting art be "part of a changing world".

If you came to discuss anarchy based on your artistical taste, you're likely on that group and you're definetly not discussing the true Anarchy system.

Nitro Punk
09-20-2005, 04:36 AM
Yeah I listen to punk rock but not for any kind of philosophy,just for the music!I wonder what anarhy has to do with punk rock and the modern version of punk?

T-6005
09-20-2005, 10:36 AM
Yeah I listen to punk rock but not for any kind of philosophy,just for the music!I wonder what anarhy has to do with punk rock and the modern version of punk?

In truth, basically nothing. It's a rebellious, cool-sounding word. Which fit punk perfectly when it started. It's still a rebellious, cool-sounding word. Except "punk" doesn't fit anymore. The only things that fit are idiots.

theUnholyNihgtbrnger
09-20-2005, 03:25 PM
Except "punk" doesn't fit anymore. The only things that fit are idiots.In truth, basically nothing. It's a rebellious, cool-sounding word. Which fit punk perfectly when it started. It's still a rebellious, cool-sounding word.

NOAMR
09-21-2005, 07:16 AM
"Well, I don't think you will stop cuz it's illegal, maybe you wouldn't start"

No, but because it's illegal the vast majority of people who use recreationally don't have regular enough access to it to develop a physical habit.

"And if it cost too much, it's a habit, cuz otherwise you could just choose how much you use."

There's a difference between a "The only reason I'm not using is because I can't afford it." habit and a "I can't afford it so I'll fill a syringe with blood and rob a supermarket" habit. And the difference is only a couple days of constant use.

"I think most people stop cuz they don't want to ruin their family..."

Most people stop because they're not actually addicted.

"And well, I also think drugs are bad, but you only increase the problems by making it illegal, it's a free choice that only hurts your own life, and government has no legal power in your life."

Meet somebody on the backend of a six-day meth binge screaming that the Mossad is trying to have them assassinated and trying to stab anybody who comes near them.

And stop having opinions on shit you know nothing about, idiot.

Hell, you don't know that much about it too. Have you ever see what happens when you make drugs legal? Their wouldn't be that much robbery's etc anymore, cuz they wouldn't be a 'criminal' yet. So the step is higher, it's illegal to rob a supermarket, and you haven't done something like that yet. You also won't live in a criminal milieu with drug dealers etc yet. You won't be that much 'rejected from society', so their would be other people to help you out.
And a start to wonder more and more how your life is and was, since you clearly avoid the question.

Ultima
09-21-2005, 04:01 PM
i luv anarchy cuz i lyk ta b reblius
*plays 'fuck da police'*

T-6005
09-21-2005, 10:34 PM
Hell, you don't know that much about it too. Have you ever see what happens when you make drugs legal? Their wouldn't be that much robbery's etc anymore, cuz they wouldn't be a 'criminal' yet. So the step is higher, it's illegal to rob a supermarket, and you haven't done something like that yet. You also won't live in a criminal milieu with drug dealers etc yet. You won't be that much 'rejected from society', so their would be other people to help you out.
And a start to wonder more and more how your life is and was, since you clearly avoid the question.

I really, really wish you'd give up because I'm growing increasingly tired of you ignoring everything we've said up until now. Basically every fucking question you could ask HAS been answered. The working model for anarchy is flawed. Period. Arguing the tiniest of societal semantics is not going to fucking change that. Realize it.

Sin Studly
09-21-2005, 10:34 PM
Hell, you don't know that much about it too. Have you ever see what happens when you make drugs legal? Their wouldn't be that much robbery's etc anymore, cuz they wouldn't be a 'criminal' yet. So the step is higher, it's illegal to rob a supermarket, and you haven't done something like that yet. You also won't live in a criminal milieu with drug dealers etc yet. You won't be that much 'rejected from society', so their would be other people to help you out.
And a start to wonder more and more how your life is and was, since you clearly avoid the question.

.... you don't rob the supermarket because 'you've criminally used drugs, and therefore it's not that a big step up' or because 'you live around criminals and therefore are rejected by society', you rob them because the Mistress demands it and the Mistress is always obeyed. Christ, you know fucking nothing. Stop having fucking opinions. Seriously, you're too stupid and naive and inexperienced to know anything about the world, so stop having opinions on it. You fucking tard.

T-6005
09-21-2005, 10:36 PM
.... you don't rob the supermarket because 'you've criminally used drugs, and therefore it's not that a big step up' or because 'you live around criminals and therefore are rejected by society', you rob them because the Mistress demands it and the Mistress is always obeyed. Christ, you know fucking nothing. Stop having fucking opinions. Seriously, you're too stupid and naive and inexperienced to know anything about the world, so stop having opinions on it. You fucking tard.

I'm impressed you can still work up the patience to meticulously counter every single ridiculous argument made. Honestly. I'm too tired of it.

wheelchairman
09-22-2005, 01:27 AM
You were born in '89, why would '88 be worse?

0r4ng3
09-22-2005, 12:15 PM
That's one hell of an overstatement, even for you. I personally think a society without crime is impossible. Do you really, honestly believe this? You sound like a typical naive anarchist teenager.

Birthday:
April 18, 1988

oh...
I'm kinda ashamed to share the same exact birthday (minus the year) as him.

ruroken
09-22-2005, 12:17 PM
Anarchy is a mental disease.

oh hell, I'm stupid, so why aren't I DISOBEYING?!?!?!
Fuck you Justin! *kicks him in the knee*
Fuck you Rick! *runs like hell*

Bryan875
09-22-2005, 06:07 PM
people think anarchy would be soo great but the chances are they would piss someone off and die in the process just like the fucking idiots they are

NOAMR
09-23-2005, 09:05 AM
.... you don't rob the supermarket because 'you've criminally used drugs, and therefore it's not that a big step up' or because 'you live around criminals and therefore are rejected by society', you rob them because the Mistress demands it and the Mistress is always obeyed. Christ, you know fucking nothing. Stop having fucking opinions. Seriously, you're too stupid and naive and inexperienced to know anything about the world, so stop having opinions on it. You fucking tard.

But if you only hear the call of the Mistress, it will influence you more then if you also hear conter-arguments from friends, family...

And I've countered all or mosts of your typical anti-anarchy-arguments, most posts(look as example to the all the posts since I've posted last time) are just 'you are just a naieve anarchist' posts. If you only bring clichés, I can only respond with clichés. Oh, and btw, I'm not a he.

T-6005
09-23-2005, 04:06 PM
And what arguments have you countered? I haven't noticed any.

Sin Studly
09-24-2005, 12:21 AM
^ These are both extremely valid questions.

NOAMR
09-24-2005, 05:42 AM
An argument I have countered is 'what to do with 'criminals', people who wonna 'profit'?'(not locking them up are trying to change their personality, but the mutual (un)aid). I also explaint how people are solidair(otherwise they wouldn't have survived), but in todays society concurention and egoïsm is promoted, so it isn't their at much. What argument haven't I countered, then I can still try to:). Oh, maybe I haven't countered the 'people are sheeps, they will always follow leaders' argument, but that is exally a pro-anarchy argument, since anarchists don't like that and just try to convince people to think for themselfs and also do it. There are people who don't follow a leader, so if that comes a good evolution caracteristic, more people will grow into self-thinking persons, and so these could abolish the leaders.

Sin Studly
09-24-2005, 08:44 AM
An argument I have countered is 'what to do with 'criminals', people who wonna 'profit'?'(not locking them up are trying to change their personality, but the mutual (un)aid). I also explaint how people are solidair(otherwise they wouldn't have survived), but in todays society concurention and egoïsm is promoted, so it isn't their at much. What argument haven't I countered, then I can still try to:). Oh, maybe I haven't countered the 'people are sheeps, they will always follow leaders' argument, but that is exally a pro-anarchy argument, since anarchists don't like that and just try to convince people to think for themselfs and also do it. There are people who don't follow a leader, so if that comes a good evolution caracteristic, more people will grow into self-thinking persons, and so these could abolish the leaders.

My brain is screaming at me, but I'm attempting to decipher this.

Erm... you've countered an argument having something to do with crime and punishment... uh... saying that they should be rehabilitated without being locked up? And... explained how people are... what, basically united in heart but todays society has trained that out of them...

No, fuck, I give up. Seriously, stop it. You haven't countered anything, you've simply replied to it with near-unintelligable rhetoric.

And answer Lazar's question.

T-6005
09-24-2005, 11:57 PM
There are people who don't follow a leader, so if that comes a good evolution caracteristic, more people will grow into self-thinking persons, and so these could abolish the leaders.

Because using the hypothetical rise, after several generations, of a character trait is a great way to get people to support your political views.

Seriously though... evolution?

NOAMR
09-25-2005, 04:56 AM
Because using the hypothetical rise, after several generations, of a character trait is a great way to get people to support your political views.

Seriously though... evolution?

I think it's evolution when people become more independent and don't follow someone else's point of view, but create their own, since then they are more themselfs and less a robot. I don't think people schould follow my political views, that would be anti-anarchistic. There are plenty of possibilities how an anarchistic society will look like, I got some ideas how I think it will be the best, but I don't think anyone schould follow that.
Well, you don't have to see it as evolution, but I didn't know you like to be a sheep and think sheeps who don't have an own brain are better.

And I'll anwer the question about heroin when Sin Studly tells something about his life history:)(well, I think you can allready guess the answer, but I need something to convince Sin to talk:)).

T-6005
09-25-2005, 09:16 AM
I got some ideas how I think it will be the best, but I don't think anyone schould follow that.



I don't think people schould follow my political views


Well, we seem to agree on one thing, at least.

Sin Studly
09-25-2005, 04:08 PM
He managed to quit and it's been something like over two months since he's used any.

:( I've been a baaaaad little boy.

shadowind
09-26-2005, 03:24 PM
But if you only hear the call of the Mistress, it will influence you more then if you also hear conter-arguments from friends, family...

na you hear the mistress and friends, your friends just hears the mistress too
and family na who cares you have your mistress right?

Sin Studly
09-27-2005, 05:30 AM
The Mistress overrules all.

0r4ng3
09-27-2005, 01:22 PM
i say anarchy is bullshit. the only people who actually support anarchism are just idiots who don't know shit about politics and just think anarchy is the best because they heard so in their favourite punk songs. okay, i admit i don't know shit about politics either. that's why i choose to just shut up instead of talking about crap. that's why i say to all those stupid anarchists out there to shut up and sit down and think.
so... this is my only contribution to this forum i guess.
You chose to shut up? Way to show it by shutting down anarchists and calling all of them "stupid".

extreme!!! chedder ranch
09-27-2005, 03:35 PM
Fuck Anarchy It Is So Not Extreme!!!
Anarchy Is Gay!!!!!
Extreme!!!

NOAMR
09-28-2005, 10:40 AM
i say anarchy is bullshit. the only people who actually support anarchism are just idiots who don't know shit about politics and just think anarchy is the best because they heard so in their favourite punk songs. okay, i admit i don't know shit about politics either. that's why i choose to just shut up instead of talking about crap. that's why i say to all those stupid anarchists out there to shut up and sit down and think.
so... this is my only contribution to this forum i guess.

Anarchists aren't really just punks. Anarchism dates back to the 19th century, when workers where oppressed by their bosses and the government(which where exally the bourgoissie, so the bosses). They didn't believe in the reformation, or the changing of the situation by going into the government, which the socialists wanted. Instead, the protested from the base, the workers let knew that they were also important, by strikes.
Most anarchists I know are also interested in politics. They protest against the torture and oppression of today's life, they reveal the oppressive caracter of the state. I don't think you schould talk about something you know nothing about, there are also a lot of anarchists who don't like it that punks hold the stereotype of anarchy=chaos, violence, cuz it is the opposite.

Ow, and cuz you want to know it so much: I admit, I have no experience with heroin, don't think I know someone who has used it, but I've seen people close to me who were/are addicted to something, drugs are something else, the reason... is the same.

Sin Studly
09-28-2005, 10:33 PM
Ow, and cuz you want to know it so much: I admit, I have no experience with heroin, don't think I know someone who has used it, but I've seen people close to me who were/are addicted to something, drugs are something else, the reason... is the same.

Your opinions on drug reform were enough for us to know you've never used heroin, nor known anybody who's used it. Please, why do you feel you deserve to have an opinion on things you know absolutely nothing about?

T-6005
09-28-2005, 11:01 PM
but I've seen people close to me who were/are addicted to something, drugs are something else, the reason... is the same.

So you know - being unable to stop playing World of Warcraft isn't the same as a heroin addiction.

Just to sort that out.

Secondly, the historical origin of anarchy doesn't keep the modern sense of it from being extremely "punk" and preached mostly by idiotic teenagers who can't realize that anarchy cannot superimpose on human society - not when typical human reactions to a lack of authority are taken into account to any degree.

Sin Studly
09-29-2005, 04:55 AM
You wouldn't believe how many attentionwhore cutters have tried to convince me their 'cutting addiction' is the same as a drug addiction.

NOAMR
09-29-2005, 10:46 AM
So you know - being unable to stop playing World of Warcraft isn't the same as a heroin addiction.

Just to sort that out.

Secondly, the historical origin of anarchy doesn't keep the modern sense of it from being extremely "punk" and preached mostly by idiotic teenagers who can't realize that anarchy cannot superimpose on human society - not when typical human reactions to a lack of authority are taken into account to any degree.

I never sayed the addiction/being able to stop was the same, but the start, the cause of it is. It's both mostly cuz off boredom, not knowing to do with his life, and also a genetical aptidude for addiction. Well, that's at least what I see in my family, with a brother who sits all day behind the pc if he has nothing else to do, and a father who often drinks. But we lose the subjet.

And anarchism today isn't necessary punk, these punk people also don't know what it is about. They just think it is cool, I think you can also see that an anarchy sign on a trendy t-shirt by a famous brand, has nothing to do with anarchism anymore. anarchists today are still busy with everyday problems, like the cruel acts upon 'illegals' or strangers, the torture in prisons... Most of them aren't teenagers, they're in the 20.

Sin Studly
09-29-2005, 10:53 AM
I never sayed the addiction/being able to stop was the same, but the start, the cause of it is.

Exactly, that's why hard drugs should be illegal. Cause it's hard for most middleclass shits like you to access enough h to develop a habit, so you probably won't do it, even if you're a user. If it were legal and cheap, they'd all be raving junkies.

But seriously, give up. Nobody takes you seriously. We just keep this argument up cause you're amusing.

NOAMR
09-30-2005, 05:21 AM
Look, the drugs thing was just an example. I think their happen a lot off bad things 'for the protection of your own good'. I don't believe a government can always kow what's the best for you, and has no right to forbid things they think is bad(and is for most people also bad, sometimes). Not because drugs become legal, that it becomes free to get everywhere. Dealing could still be illegal, cuz you harm OTHER people's live by it. Okay, that's hypocrite, I know, I'm personnally not for anything making illegal, but this is for today's society. It's the same as killing yourself schouldn't be illegal, but kill someone else is. I think they are people who got a depressif caracter, and so won't be happy in their lives, unless they use drugs to achieve it. After a while they get addicted, and will have a misery live again and die at an early age, but they maybe had more happiness in their lives then when they wouldn't have used drugs. Drugs are bad, but sometimes normal live is even worse. But yeah, we're getting off the subject, so if anyone has to say something about an anarchy post of me(I guess I was the last), feel free to.

T-6005
09-30-2005, 11:14 AM
Your rationale for approving drug use is the worst thought process I've ever seen.

shadowind
09-30-2005, 03:02 PM
i would establish a new one
if i could
or at least join one maby

Sin Studly
10-01-2005, 08:19 AM
Look, the drugs thing was just an example. I think their happen a lot off bad things 'for the protection of your own good'. I don't believe a government can always kow what's the best for you, and has no right to forbid things they think is bad(and is for most people also bad, sometimes). Not because drugs become legal, that it becomes free to get everywhere. Dealing could still be illegal, cuz you harm OTHER people's live by it. Okay, that's hypocrite, I know, I'm personnally not for anything making illegal, but this is for today's society. It's the same as killing yourself schouldn't be illegal, but kill someone else is. I think they are people who got a depressif caracter, and so won't be happy in their lives, unless they use drugs to achieve it. After a while they get addicted, and will have a misery live again and die at an early age, but they maybe had more happiness in their lives then when they wouldn't have used drugs. Drugs are bad, but sometimes normal live is even worse. But yeah, we're getting off the subject, so if anyone has to say something about an anarchy post of me(I guess I was the last), feel free to.

You're an idiot. Don't fucking talk to me about drugs, because I've experienced more than you'll ever learn.

Sin Studly
10-01-2005, 08:20 AM
Hard drugs aren't illegal becuase somebody thought they were immoral. They can destroy lives, and in some cases whole cities.

Quoted for extreme truth.

NOAMR
10-01-2005, 11:50 AM
Look Sin, I know you've suffered from drugs, I know lots off people do, but you can't experience how other people live their lives, how fucked-up it is, how they experience drugs. So you also don't know everything.


Actually, I'll go back on topic. For one thing, I'll accept somebody telling me what to do and not do in extreme cases. Hard drugs aren't illegal becuase somebody thought they were immoral. They can destroy lives, and in some cases whole cities.

Secondly, you never answered me:Originally Posted by This Thread Is Gay.
And on another topic, have you ever considered that some people want to be ruled? I would get scared shitless if there was no government. I'm sure if for whatever reason all governing organizations were disestablished, lots of people, including myself, would attempt to establish new ones.

I think I've allready answered this case. There will still be some 'morality', things that aren't accepted, like stealing. Hard drugs will be seen as something deadly, something bad to use. So if you want rules, you can simply follow these 'society rules'. The difference with today is that people who don't want to just follow them without thinking whether it would be good or bad, don't have to.
I personnally think you schould decide for yourself what your values are, and not follow other people's norms, since we all think different and are different. But you have the right to follow someone else('s rules), and you'd be perfectly able in anarchism. But you don't have the right to force these views upon others, that would be dictatorian(even if you would force democracy or some other form, they don't choose to be ruled like that). These groups will be like sects, they follow the rules(whether they are strict are not), but when they oppress others, even if it is allowed by their rules, that will cause the same as if it has been done by someone who acts for himself(remember the mutual(un)aid system).

T-6005
10-01-2005, 03:34 PM
Where's the democracy in your system? Wouldn't voters automatically vote out the dildo clauses?

Sin Studly
10-01-2005, 09:51 PM
Look Sin, I know you've suffered from drugs, I know lots off people do, but you can't experience how other people live their lives, how fucked-up it is, how they experience drugs. So you also don't know everything.

But I know enough to realise what you're saying is complete and utter nonsensical bullshit. Stop posting.

NOAMR
10-02-2005, 07:16 AM
You know, just because you can connect ideas together that in theory sound workable in your head, doesn't mean they are.

Otherwise and completely nonrelatededly, I've decided today that I believe in dildonian democracy. I believe(and you can't dissprove me) that the best societies are representative democracies where each person is required to be anally bated with a rubber dildo(one best fitting to the length and tightness of their colon), for 5000 repetitions over a period of thirty minutes every day. Because in this society, citizens will be extremely docile. They'll be way to worn out to revolt or protest anything. People will basically be free, but they'll accept anything the government does over penalty of harsher assfucking(making the dildo longer, harder, vibrating, or increasing time/repetitions). Those born into the system will consider the daily dildo dose as routine as brushing their teeth. This system is also great for the economy, which will have a huge industry in [dildo and lubricant] manufacturing, shipping, licensed baters, medicine(especially proctology). Now, I challenge you, find a flaw in my perfect form of government. I'll counter every argument you have to show you how dildocratics like myself have a perfect, though never proven solution for everything.

If you look it true the eyes of the government/the system, it would be good, cuz they won't have that much problems(well, it could be also possible that people start to protest for what the government does). But if you care for the people's happiness, it won't be good cuz people would suffer. I don't look at whether the sytem turns good, but whether the people are happy and free. Capitalism also turns pretty well, but a lot off people in Africa etc suffer a lot from it, so I don't think that's a good system.

T-6005
10-02-2005, 03:45 PM
If you cared about what was good for the people in a realistic sense, you wouldn't be an idiotic anarchist.

ruroken
10-02-2005, 07:59 PM
Why are you still arguing with the piece of shit?

I Am The Cookie Monster
10-02-2005, 08:17 PM
Why do people fight over the net? I mean holy shit sticks just PWN the fucker so much he cuts his wrists and let it be.

T-6005
10-03-2005, 12:41 AM
Battle moded as shit right now. WHICH CALLS FOR CAPITALS.

I hate people who can't fucking GET IT. It's fucking ridiculous. It's more sad than amusing at this point.

NOAMR
10-05-2005, 07:02 AM
I hate people who think they know THE Truth, and think their opinion is the right one, and the rest 'don't get it'. I'll reply to your post later, TTIG, it's gonna take a while, so I like to do it calm.

That_Guy91
10-05-2005, 07:34 AM
I hate people who think they know THE Truth, and think their opinion is the right one, and the rest 'don't get it'. I'll reply to your post later, TTIG, it's gonna take a while, so I like to do it calm.
i just realized something-

youre still here? is this the only thread you post in?

also, youre one of the people you said you hate.

T-6005
10-05-2005, 11:52 AM
I hate people who think they know THE Truth, and think their opinion is the right one, and the rest 'don't get it'. I'll reply to your post later, TTIG, it's gonna take a while, so I like to do it calm.

It's not so much that I believe that my utopian political vision is right and yours isn't. That's mostly because I definitely don't think I know enough about government to say what is the optimal makeup of my choice.

However, when I'm talking to you, it's not like we're arguing about our opinions. It's like we're all trying to convince you that 6 multiplied by 7 is 42, and you keep giving reasons as to why it's 53. The problem with your arguments is just that they DONT WORK.

NOAMR
10-05-2005, 01:43 PM
Hm, I think it's more like the whole world says 6*7=53, and you all take it without thinking about it whether that would be right, and I'm the one who says "no guys, 6*7=42". And well, their aren't such truths in the world, everything is a matter of perception. So everything is an opinion.

shadowind
10-05-2005, 01:53 PM
Hm, I think it's more like the whole world says 6*7=53, and you all take it without thinking about it whether that would be right, and I'm the one who says "no guys, 6*7=42". And well, their aren't such truths in the world, everything is a matter of perception. So everything is an opinion.
yea and opinions can be flat out wrong
with the most out there signs saying
"no" "false" " ext.

ruroken
10-05-2005, 08:53 PM
Holy shit, that guy is a loser. "You always think you're right. Pff, no way, I'm right. You just don't understand me!"

T-6005
10-06-2005, 01:11 AM
Indeed - let's kill it.

NOAMR
10-07-2005, 08:19 AM
I never sayed I am right, I just say that you guys aren't necessary right, I think you are the ones who believe too much in the current system. Opinions can't be wrong, they can be too little based on facts etc, but even the choice of facts you hear is subjective, if you only hear talking about how good the state is, not what he do wrong, and you hear everything wrong on 'the other side'(actual example:muslims), that will influence your opinion a lot, even tho it are facts you hear.
I just found a more accurate explanation for the math comparison :D (it's already more difficult math, so I don't know if you'll all understand): it's like sometimes, you don't find all the solutions, cuz their is a square root of a negatif number(which, you prolly learnt, has no solution). But if you change -1 par i² and you calculate forther with it, you may find a solution, cuz you have to kwadrate it again. That's the solution I propose, and it's normal you all think it's impossible.

Sin Studly
10-07-2005, 10:07 AM
I'd like to know, in a world without any form of government:
What is used as currency?
How does one area trade with another, area; especially those overseas?
How are militias supressed?
What protects innocent civilians?
What controls crime?

Please, answer in paragraph form. Also, describe solutions to the following scenarios:

Scenario #1) My house is on fire. How is it put out, now that there are no taxes to support the local firestation?

Scenario #2) I'm mentaly handicapped and used to live mostly off government funding. What do I do now to survive?

Scenario #3)I'm the landlord of a thirty story apartment building. Last week, all my tenants together told me they refuse to pay rent.

Scenario #4) I'm a black man living in the city of Atlanta. Last week, about 40,000 armed white men took forceful control of large areas of what used to be North and South Carolina. They enforced Martial law on those areas and killed all black people in the area. They have announced they will do the same in my city and it's surronding areas. What do I do?

Scenario #5) A group of roughly 8000 has taken forceful control of a nuclear power plant. If they do not recieve 20,000 bricks of gold within one month, they will cause the plant to meltdown, killing millions nearby.

Scenario #6) Without taxes to support them, there are no organizations devoted to the control of infectios deadly diseases. Recently an outbreak of Ebola has infected nearly half of the population of an African city(pop.400,000). The remaining residents have evacuated, many of them unknowingly carrying the disease. Nearby cities have reported hundreds of deaths from Ebola, and it appears to have infected many more. How is this disease quarantied?

Answer the dirty slav.

memento
10-07-2005, 11:29 AM
God TTiG is so unread in the subject matter. Re: fire

Anarcho-capitalists would merely say the free market would perform the job.

Anarcho-communists - they'd organise a fire dept. themselves in a non hierarchical nature.

You see all the questions you morons pose have been answered a million times already. You all clearly have a very basic undestanding of a complex political philosophy. You can neither argue against it just like you can't argue against theories for quantum gravity. You know nothing about the subject matter bar "no government".

You should perhaps search for some FAQ's and respond to their counter arguments.

EROS2
10-07-2005, 02:25 PM
whats anarchy??????

memento
10-07-2005, 02:38 PM
Also NOMAR stop arguing these people are too stupid/lazy to read up themselves on stupid ass questions they ask. Just leave it.

T-6005
10-07-2005, 07:06 PM
God TTiG is so unread in the subject matter. Re: fire

Anarcho-capitalists would merely say the free market would perform the job.

Anarcho-communists - they'd organise a fire dept. themselves in a non hierarchical nature.

You see all the questions you morons pose have been answered a million times already. You all clearly have a very basic undestanding of a complex political philosophy. You can neither argue against it just like you can't argue against theories for quantum gravity. You know nothing about the subject matter bar "no government".

You should perhaps search for some FAQ's and respond to their counter arguments.

You should perhaps take a look around and realize that without an authority figure, a fire department would never be formed. The thought would circulate within whatever community, possibly, but the actual department itself requires someone to form it. Or someones. But without a deciding body of authority weighing what is necessary and not (see - authority figure), nothing will ever get done.

Your utopian political structure will never work in real life. Please realize that and stop living a ridiculous dream.

As for imaginary numbers - NOAMR, I don't think you've realized that only mathematically do those work. You can't plot i on a graph. They are a theoretical answer. They have no basis in reality. Just like anarchy.

Well, it seems your analogy was more correct than you could have guessed.

memento
10-08-2005, 01:52 AM
Your utopian political structure will never work in real life. Please realize that and stop living a ridiculous dream.


I'm not a fucking anarchist. I'm just not stupid enough to dismiss things with cursory arguments that an 8 year old with a brain could make with nothing more than "it won't work because it's a dream" wtf give some solid arguments not hte shit you come out with. There are PLENTY out there.

I realise that a movement that has existed a hundred years, probably more and who predicted the despotism of state-socialism isn't a 'stupid dream'. An idea of a stupid society would die out. Academics would cease arguing and people would cease believing. But you idiots keep going on "NO AUTHORITY SO WHAT ABOUT X WHICH NEEDS AUTHORITY".


You should perhaps take a look around and realize that without an authority figure, a fire department would never be formed. The thought would circulate within whatever community, possibly, but the actual department itself requires someone to form it. Or someones. But without a deciding body of authority weighing what is necessary and not (see - authority figure), nothing will ever get done.

Wrong. Who says there cannot be authority figures? It's hierarchical institutions they don't like. And that's only anarchist-communists/individualists that are like this. And it's a community woudl vote via direct democracy if someone didn't set something up. Further the 'authority figure' only gains power via hirerarchy and 'legal fictions to cling to'. If these do not exist he can forefil his role without corruption. This is what I think the anarchist would say.

Also another gay thing that people always say is about you'd get your throat slit in an anarchist society. That's just your penal theory that laws stop crime. Anarchists have theirs. You think your right because you are so myopic to think that becuase society is organised via this means and law is disposed via the state it can't be any other way. You have no knowledge of jurisprudential or penal theory in this area either. You are idiots. Stop posting threads about topics you know nothing about.

The main point about crime and all that they make however is the state is the biggest criminal of all. They have killed over 100,000,000 million people. Sure they've saved what a few 100,000 lives via the criminal law (doubtful!) but in comparison to their evils. You do the maths.

Kropotkin in his essay 'Law and Authority" basically says he wants to replace law with customs that existed in prelegal societies and law doesn't stop anything he thinks the criminal needs love rather than punishment. This is a different kind of penal theory and you cannot say 'it won't work' because it does. Other Anarchists also say that there will always be mad men and they need to be delt with more firmly.

Some good arguments against leftist Anarchism is how would an army work, it's impractical because there'd be no defence against invasion. In countries that have massive nucelar arsenels what woudl happen to thse after the revoultion? Mad men woudl take them over and launch attacks and start WW3. That is why it's impractical and will never work.

IMO the only time it would work would be when there's a mass culling of the population via war or environmental change/disease etc. and technolgy is somehow wiped out i.e. by EMP's from the bombs.

memento
10-08-2005, 01:57 AM
Ha, I <3 that pwnage. You're cool in my book.

Also, what people seem to have conveniantly forgotten, is that no matter what utopian system you create, you need tax dollars to support it. Without tax dollars, you won't build anything. People of the community will NOT willingly chip in large sums of money/volunteer hours. The second you create systems and agencies by which to collect and structure spending of taxes, you've created government. No amount of reading will change that, nor will any suffix you can add to anarcho-.

That's your opinon. It simply isn't a universal 'truth'. It's akin to the arguments "it won't work because of human nature'.

anarcho-capitalists would say: The free market can provide it because people don't purely repsond to the price signal. The invisble hand would also allocate welfare state/services. THey cite actual economist emperical evidence that when a group of people were given real money they didn't just spend it on selfish things but took quite a few dollars out to traditional government supplied goods. People aren't as selfish as one would imagine them. So say the anarchists. You disagree with them sure but don't cite it as some 'truth', rather viewpoint.

And anarcho-mini's whom advocate a skeleton state to provide for things like you say would agree with you that's why a minimilst government needs to be maintained, however, without the massive corruption and non benefical things it performes like maintaining a capitalist legal system to get profit from workers, legally.

a-communists well they'd go with the fact that communities would set them up themselves because the community would need it. They have the weakest argument though but I'm sure it's answered better than that somewhere.

NOAMR
10-08-2005, 04:16 AM
You should perhaps take a look around and realize that without an authority figure, a fire department would never be formed. The thought would circulate within whatever community, possibly, but the actual department itself requires someone to form it. Or someones. But without a deciding body of authority weighing what is necessary and not (see - authority figure), nothing will ever get done.

Your utopian political structure will never work in real life. Please realize that and stop living a ridiculous dream.

As for imaginary numbers - NOAMR, I don't think you've realized that only mathematically do those work. You can't plot i on a graph. They are a theoretical answer. They have no basis in reality. Just like anarchy.

Well, it seems your analogy was more correct than you could have guessed.

There can be someone to form it, someone with the ideas, which people look up to and take over if they like them, that person just can't obligate his ideas, things would be decided by direct democracy, like memento sayed.
About the imaginary numbers: you can exally put them on a graph: if you got x+yi(where x and y are just normal numbers), you just put the x-value on the x-as, and the y-value on the y-as. And like I sayed, at first they have no base in reality, it seems impossible, but if you work forther on it, they become a realistic answer, which could be usefull. You find solutions where you would otherwise not even know about, realistic ones.

NOAMR
10-08-2005, 04:45 AM
People don't make good contributions to society on their own. To get into some reality, NOAMR:

Since you seem to have every answer, I'd like to know, in a world without any form of government:
What is used as currency?
Depends on how the society will look like(anarcho-capitalistic/anarcho-communistic...). Some communities will simply trade(exhange goods), without any money. Others(mutualism) will simply be able to get whatever they want and produce what is need(it's kinda the same as the previous, with the difference that you can't be valued on the things you produce, not because you can produce more/handier stuff, that you will have more. The critique is that people won't work, cuz they don't have to, but people can still refuse to give to 'lazy' people). There could also be some kinda 'LETS' system, where people get points for their services, which they can use for other services. But you go 'on red', so first need a service and then 'pay it back'. It's like 'if you bake a cake, I repare you're bicycle'. Or, their can be a community who simply gives a value(=money) to their goods. Which is easier, but also more dangerous for inequality.


How does one area trade with another, area; especially those overseas?
So these communities schould trade with each other. For these with money, they'll agree a value for each other currency. That will be more fair then nowadays, since they both have to agree. If on the one community, everything is priced 2 times higher then the other, 2 'values' schould be traded by 1. That would allready stop some of the unequality with the 3rd world. There is much chance that they simply become to 1 currency, since that it easier.
For these without money, they would simply exhange goods, or by mutual aid(both communities give what they can miss and the other community need), or by trade one thing for another, or...
Trading between a non-currency-community and a currency one, will be prolly with the money: they get money for their goods, which they can use to buy others. But it could also be the other way around: just by trading, or by mutual aiding.
So that trading would be quite simple: both parties just agree on a value..., could be individual based, or some kinda value decided by the community(where they can deviate of, off course).

The rest, I'll reply to later, I'm gonna eat first now.

Sin Studly
10-08-2005, 05:24 AM
You realise anarcho-capitalism is basically letting the corporations govern for you and shouldn't really be considered anarchism?

NOAMR
10-08-2005, 07:02 AM
How are militias supressed?
The villagers will protect themselfs, they'll organise a counter-movement... Also, this group won't earn any social statute, so they'll have to survive on their own. No-one will trade with them, give them anything, so it doesn't bring up anything to steal value stuff(like money, gold...), only things they can use immediatelly, like food..., they could steal. If they want to have a villa, they'll have to take it over, so they need various men to protect it, which makes it easy to stop the militias. People won't trade with them, cuz that will be socially unaccepted, almost as much as being a militia themself, so this doesn't profit, cuz they won't be able to trade self then. Being a military won't earn any social statue, you will be seen as a following sheep who gives his life for the imaginair idea of 'country'.
There is off course still the problem of other, non-anarchistic countries where power etc isn't seen as something bad. But I think other countries will find it extremely arrogant if a country attacks a non-protected country like the anarchist one. These will protest against them(like the protests against the war in Iraq, not being gived the legacy by the UN...). There will also be huge protest from the citizen of the arrogant country, who see the cruelty of it. All this protest allready weakens their position and power. Perhaps you say: the war in Iraq, Bush did it anyway, no matter what the protest where. But they still had a reason to attack, Saddam had still an army. You know, there is allready a country that doesn't have an army, a middle-American one, don't know which one any more. They don't have problems with it neather, so why schouldn't it be possible? You don't solve violence with violence.


What protects innocent civilians?
What controls crime?
They'll protect themselfs, support each other if they are problems...
Like I sayed 100 times: mutual(un)aid. If they do things against the society, society will do something back to them, like not trading with them. Also, people don't just commit crimes for no reason, they have almost always personnal or social problems. If they feel offended by society, there is no-one who understand them..., they'll do something back. So the first thing is just try to understand them, let them know you still support them, but not their actions. That, if you wonna live in this society, you schould help it and not destroy it. That they can be usefull. Etc, etc

Please, answer in paragraph form. Also, describe solutions to the following scenarios:

Scenario #1) My house is on fire. How is it put out, now that there are no taxes to support the local firestation?

There will simply be some voluntairs, and people will pay for the fire-station'and the survive of the voluntairs), cuz they could need it, just like people nowadays pay assurance. In the mutualist system, there is nothing to be need to pay, so this will work for sure. In the trade system, people who make the product need, will give it away, perhaps some people will give them more for the trouble. In the LETS-system, the voluntaries will get 'points' where they can get fire material and things they need to survive from.


Scenario #2) I'm mentaly handicapped and used to live mostly off government funding. What do I do now to survive?

I think this is one of the reasons why the mutualist system is good: they'll simply get what they need. In the other systems, they also prolly will not have to pay, or will get money from people. Possible that their will be some kinda assurance, where you pay according to your income, if you don't earn anything or not much, you'll get money. People will pay cuz they can always lose their job.

Scenario #3)I'm the landlord of a thirty story apartment building. Last week, all my tenants together told me they refuse to pay rent.
I think you schould first think on your wn faults, perhaps you ask way too much rent, and the people can't pay it anymore. So you can aggociate on a lower rent. Also, you can ask yourself questions about the justification of asking rent. You exally profit from these people who don't have the money to buy it themselfs. You simply get money cuz you got something, you don't have to do anything for it. That was what Proudhon meant with 'Property is Thief'. Off course, the costs of building the apartment schould be payed back, but you exally have no right to make any profit, since you haven't worked yourself on it. If the inhabitants don't want to pay it all back, you could exally just give them the building themselfs and so they'll have to pay the costs to the workers directly themselfs.

Scenario #4) I'm a black man living in the city of Atlanta. Last week, about 40,000 armed white men took forceful control of large areas of what used to be North and South Carolina. They enforced Martial law on those areas and killed all black people in the area. They have announced they will do the same in my city and it's surronding areas. What do I do?

This one is kinda an example of the 'militia' question. Organise you, so that you can better protect, and announce the cruelty all over the world. They'll have much countering, they will be boycotted, so their economy will fall. People who are against oppression from all over the world, will help you (like todays Médecins Sans Frontières etc). Military if really needed, just by sending medical and food help otherwise.


Scenario #5) A group of roughly 8000 has taken forceful control of a nuclear power plant. If they do not recieve 20,000 bricks of gold within one month, they will cause the plant to meltdown, killing millions nearby.

Try to menace too. If they do it, they will be hated all over the world, and fast being killed. If they don't give a shit about that, you could also tell that they won't be able to do anything with the gold anyway, cuz their faces(of the leaders mostly) will be seen all over the world, so no-one will accept the gold. And the gold will have a secret sign, which will be announced after the giving. So it won't matter that much if you gave them it, they can't do anything with it.
And in a decentralized world like an anarchistic one, they simply can't do it, since there is no government, central institute to ask it. No-one can feel responsable for it, you can't kill a million people because not everyone on the world was that friendly with the million, since there where prolly be people who were. They'll prolly just menace, and take the money they allready received.


Scenario #6) Without taxes to support them, there are no organizations devoted to the control of infectios deadly diseases. Recently an outbreak of Ebola has infected nearly half of the population of an African city(pop.400,000). The remaining residents have evacuated, many of them unknowingly carrying the disease. Nearby cities have reported hundreds of deaths from Ebola, and it appears to have infected many more. How is this disease quarantied?

Same as the 'fire-station' for how to support the organisations: a combination of voluntarism, solidarity and assurancy. People will send massive help, cuz they don't want it to become bigger, and they know there is no government who will do something against it(which is mostly minimal and not enough). Doctors will be send(Médecins Sans Frontières ...). People also will be informed and people with Ebola detected, so that they can bring them to special hospitals.

memento
10-08-2005, 10:56 AM
You realise anarcho-capitalism is basically letting the corporations govern for you and shouldn't really be considered anarchism?

That's what left anarchists say, however in a traditional sense it is still Anarchy becuase there is no government. Indeed the freemarket performs government roles but there is no government.

And yes I agree that anarcho-capitalism isn't really in line with anarchist political thought. But still it bears mentioning because they're the only ones who have spent time detailing exactly how their system would work. Mainly because they're economists.

T-6005
10-08-2005, 08:09 PM
See, memento, the problem with all of your arguments is that you fail to factor that it is, at base, all conjecture and theory.

You accuse us of believing that the penal code is the only method of preventing crime, and then you think you've somehow proved a point by saying that. I'm not going to stand up and tell you that the penal code is a completely flawless way to reduce crime, but it is still an extremely effective one.

Anywho - I noticed your statement on things not being universal truths, just opinions, and then soon after the statement "people are not as selfish as one would imagine".

About that -

You can pretty much say that greed has been one of the driving forces of history. Hell, not even pretty much. It's the reason for the rise of capitalism and the consumption obssession in wealthy countries - humans are never satisfied with what they have, whatever that might be. People look for the most pleasure and wealth for themselves - that one might as well be a written statement on human nature.

T-6005
10-08-2005, 08:10 PM
and they know there is no government who will do something against it(which is mostly minimal and not enough). Doctors will be send(Médecins Sans Frontières ...). People also will be informed and people with Ebola detected, so that they can bring them to special hospitals.Same as the 'fire-station' for how to support the organisations: a combination of voluntarism, solidarity and assurancy. People will send massive help, cuz they don't want it to become bigger,

I'm sure those people with Ebola will love receiving all of the non-existent resources that the people helping them aren't sending because they had them stolen.

Sin Studly
10-08-2005, 11:39 PM
That's what left anarchists say, however in a traditional sense it is still Anarchy becuase there is no government. Indeed the freemarket performs government roles but there is no government.

Government is whoevers in charge, whether it's a board of elected officials, a bunch of loudmouthed hippies, a military junta or some biker gang president. Corporations would become the new government.

T-6005
10-09-2005, 12:43 AM
You mean, you expected something more than the usual?

But why?

memento
10-09-2005, 02:41 AM
You accuse us of believing that the penal code is the only method of preventing crime, and then you think you've somehow proved a point by saying that. I'm not going to stand up and tell you that the penal code is a completely flawless way to reduce crime, but it is still an extremely effective one.



So is rehab, and a far better way is to stop poverty or even poor people being poor. If society were more equal there woudl be less crime. it's well known that crime is related to the background you come from. You can prove that with stats. So if you improve the background of these people crime will be reduced. People USUALLY cry out that no law = slit throats. Anarchists are merely providing another way to control crime. My own view is a mix of both these.


You can pretty much say that greed has been one of the driving forces of history. Hell, not even pretty much. It's the reason for the rise of capitalism and the consumption obsession in wealthy countries - humans are never satisfied with what they have, whatever that might be. People look for the most pleasure and wealth for themselves - that one might as well be a written statement on human nature.

I'd somewhat agree with you. But the reason greed is a driving force is environmental determinism not genetic. Well of course it might be genetic in the 'leaders' but not the mass of the people. We are indoctrinated from birth that we must strive to better, study harder, work harder, compete, compete, compete, compete! If this changed it is quite self evident that society would change. Self evident because it's the whole 'good home' 'bad home' background.

While this is a lofty ambition because in a social darwinistic sense those who make it a compete/want society are the ones smart enough to climb the ladder and set the environment themselves or of course in monarchy they are born into it.


See, memento, the problem with all of your arguments is that you fail to factor that it is, at base, all conjecture and theory.

That is what all your arguments are too. You say because the system is this way it cannot be anything else. Because the system works this way it cannot be anything else. That is theory at it's most fundamental level. It is not fact that dictates society cannot run another way, merely theory. A theory of humanity, determinism, capitalism, economics and psychology determines your view point. These are not self evident truths. We are not discussing physics.

The penal code/criminal law is a perfect example. Rather than using that to reduce crime it could be used in combination with improving poor people's environments so they don't turn out that way. If everyone had your viewpoint there would be no penal reform! Because it works currently so that is how it has to be! You have to have normative goals otherwise you're a conservative in the fullest sense. Of course you don't entirely have that viewpoint becuase you accepeted it needs constant reform.

Anarchists and other leftists have a different theory about these fundamental social sciencesand sciences (biology mainly?) that woudln't degenerate into a Hobbsian war of all against all. They seek historical and current socities to attempt to prove that people aren't as warring as we would presume them to be.

For the record I think it's mostly bull shit. As I said unless the human race could start over under different structual conditions so we could develop differently from wanting more and more I am sure such a system could work. That is why I say only after immense war where billions die and technology is all but wiped out will such a society exist, but IMO it would be a cycle. We'd eventually war again, then gain better weapons, create bigger wars and soverign states would emerge. Capitalism would rise again and after this maybe another war and it would start over again. Perhaps instead of a one way thrust to a utopian society it would be a circular cycle.

And the whole greed thing, well I dunno about anyone else but I'm no where near as greedy as the majority. The love of a good woman, land to support a family, and a good wine is all I need. Just a shame no body can see the riches within non economic assets absoultely drawf the rest.

memento
10-09-2005, 02:49 AM
Government is whoevers in charge, whether it's a board of elected officials, a bunch of loudmouthed hippies, a military junta or some biker gang president. Corporations would become the new government.

Granted, government in a semantic sense is whoever is in charge wheather that be over a soverign state, a group of people or a coporation. So that would include bosses and parents.

But in an anarcho capitalist society there would be so many competing firms in ideally 'perfect competiton't that one firm would not have market power over the rest. This is precisely what government is. It has so much power compared to other institutions in society that is why it can be so powerful and dictating. Corporations coudl't do that. In a sense it's akin to a monopoly versus perfect competition firms. The monpoly can do what it wants but the small firms can't. If they don't respond to the consumer they will die out.

Of course they could setup cartels but I'm sure the economists who write about this type of theory have already delt with that. I have no knowledge on that. Further what would happen with utility suppliers? Or postal service etc.

Nikako22
10-11-2005, 02:29 PM
Anarchy is impossible. In my opinion man in one of his most fundemental characteristics needs some power in charge over himself. Man without an authority cannot exist he will force himself to recognize some authority. And if you don't believe some men are power hungry and some are gullible whoever has the most support or the most weapons is in charge or the soveriegn. Anarchy can rule for short periods of time (New Orleans) but given oh lets say 2 years or so a ruling power would emerge.

memento
10-11-2005, 03:11 PM
LOL at stupid.

shadowind
10-11-2005, 03:13 PM
stupids right

Nikako22
10-11-2005, 03:15 PM
which ones stupid? haha

shadowind
10-11-2005, 03:18 PM
i agree with you he called you stupid
so i said stupids right

Nikako22
10-11-2005, 03:21 PM
You can't have a anarchist capitalist society. Capitalism requires law to keep it in its strictist form. Anarchist Capitalism= You and your buddies go "buy" some guns and kill everyone at your local microsoft outlet and try to sell their products..... then someone else and their buddies go "buy" some guns and and kill you... vicious cycle. Hell you wouldn't even have guns science wouldn't continue and no one would be producing bullets because everyday someone else would take it over. Like I said above anarchy can only exist for a short while and they are always violent periods followed by equally violent dictatorships

T-6005
10-11-2005, 04:18 PM
Actually, dumbass, capitalism in its purest form is completely devoid of government intervention.

Nikako22
10-11-2005, 05:05 PM
No it isn't it is hands off only in regards to buying and selling of goods... not lawlessness and murder :)

NOAMR
10-12-2005, 06:53 AM
Anarchy is impossible. In my opinion man in one of his most fundemental characteristics needs some power in charge over himself. Man without an authority cannot exist he will force himself to recognize some authority. And if you don't believe some men are power hungry and some are gullible whoever has the most support or the most weapons is in charge or the soveriegn. Anarchy can rule for short periods of time (New Orleans) but given oh lets say 2 years or so a ruling power would emerge.

Not very logic. If a man without an authority can't exist, how can the highest authority can exist, since there is no-one anymore who rule over him. Unless you think there is a God who does(and isn't human), but then that God could rule over everyone. And I don't recognize any authority, I've decided to always take my own decisions, no matter what an authority says. I decide for myself what's good and what's evil(=what hurts others, I think), and I believe I will cause less problems then someone who follows an authority, since then you can't know(because you don't think about it), whether you cause harm. And I don't see why I don't have the right to start up a society with people who think the same, and think it's cruel when you will obstruct it(and I think there could be some people here who will).
And I'm tired of your connotation with murder etc, I've told allready a hundred times that that isn't anarchism, but you prolly haven't even read it. In New Orleans, there has never been anarchism, since cops and the army where there soon to bring 'order'(instead of helping). It showed the cruelty of the state, even tho the media shows it off course the other way around. People didn't had food or homes or anything, so they went to the empty shops to 'steal' their. That there were also cops who looted, shows the necessity of it.
I don't support the shooting etc(which harmed innocents), but that also isn't anarchy: they try to rule over others, cuz that's the only way they could get what they need. They used power, which is against anarchy.

Now something about anarcho-capitalism: I kinda agree with Sin Studly, if I look to the power of corporations in our life today, I can't believe that it will just disappear when the government disappear. But I've spoken to some A-C's, and I can kinda unerstand their point of view. They believe that the state causes monopolies and the unequallity etc. Without a state, it would be much easier to start up a new company, since there aren't that much costs. So if a corporation isn't right, someone just start up a new one, and if people really aren't happy with the other, they will go to the new one.

Nikako22
10-12-2005, 07:25 AM
Ok one you do recognize some authority or you wouldn't spend money you would use the barter and trade system... currency is enforced by an outside authority. You wouldn't obey zoning laws you wouldn't pay taxes, and countless other examples. You would shoot a cop as soon as he showed up. That is Anarchy in its purest form. and there was anarchy mass looting,raping,murdering is anarchy. In an anarchy you have no police force, no military and there will always be someone in that type of society that will kill,rape,plunder. And in a democratic-republic like we have the government is in theory supposed to answer to a higher authority... the people,its a circular balance of authority. When that circular balance of authority is thrown off oh lets say like in the case of some African nations which the people have "elected" dictators which appoint no one to a road commission to ensure that roads are properly upheld, and we see as a result the collapse of the automobile use in those countries because there is no self installed order. Now you may say in that system the dictator answers to no higher authority.. you would be wrong, eventually people rebel and that is why there are continued revolutions in Africa. You may also say that our democratic-republic is no longer a true democratic-republic and that it answers to no authority... you would again be incorrect.. that is why we have freedom of press to report on the goings on of the government. As to perfect capitalism would not have a government.. you are thinking of communism. CAPTITALISM CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT GOVERNMENT. All institutions placed in a position of authority move towards becoming more powerful.. including surprise surprise CORPORATIONS!! Corporations move towards wiping each other out and thats the way it would be we would eventually have one huge corporations ruling over everyone.. it is true that governments impose some monopolies and our government in my own opinion places too many restrictions on corporations in America that is why jobs go over sea's... but there must be anti-monopoly laws of some form to keep one mega-corporation from arising. Also corporations however large they may grow cannot be expected to keep social order... that is why we have a socially ordained order. Corporations and capitalism also rely on science .. science is not possible in a anarchy. In an anarchy there is no uniform measuring unit,currency,market, ect. As in regards to New Orleans it was in anarchy that is why there were surprise surprise! lootings,murders,rapings,ect. ect. The police and other executive branches could not help citizens because of these violent and chaotic events. Without order they could not help because they would be shot at, the innocent would be shot at, ect.
Capitalism= You have two cows, you sell one cow and buy a bull.
Anarchy= You have two cows, you shoot your neighbor and take his cow.

T-6005
10-13-2005, 01:50 AM
It's like watching an argument in Swahili... I honestly don't understand a single fucking sentence.

memento
10-13-2005, 02:14 AM
Actually, dumbass, capitalism in its purest form is completely devoid of government intervention.

Indeed the state formed to deal with societies rational will becuase capitliasm left to its own devices would devour itself. Hobbes said that. Smart guy.

T-6005
10-13-2005, 07:11 AM
Yeah, yeah, whatever... so tell me, do you understand anything NOAMR and Nikako22 say? Just in general? Rereading their argument is fascinating me, because it's still making absolutely no sense.

memento
10-13-2005, 07:19 AM
I don't read their posts, too long.

Nikako22
10-13-2005, 07:30 AM
Memento condensed what I was saying. Thats the general idea my post just had examples and more explanation but same idea.

NOAMR
10-15-2005, 12:21 PM
Ok one you do recognize some authority or you wouldn't spend money you would use the barter and trade system... currency is enforced by an outside authority. You wouldn't obey zoning laws you wouldn't pay taxes, and countless other examples. You would shoot a cop as soon as he showed up. That is Anarchy in its purest form. .

I have no other choose then to use money in this system, and that's not just a matter of authority, but you just need kinda the same economical sytem if you trade with others, and such a system automaticly comes there(just cuz people wonna trade with each other, and they invent things that makes it easier, money for example). I don't follow alll the laws, if I don't think they're valid or good, I won't. Only, I won't just tell you and the whole world, and I won't do it in the eyes of a cop. Just cuz that's more negatif then positif for me. So okay, I don't do just whatever I think is good and bad, but sometimes have to follow rules and an authority, but I simply have no choice(well, I'll always try not to do it, sure if I cause harm if I do it). I can live without one, I don't need it. And I would never shoot a cop, not cuz law forbids it, but simply cuz I think killing is bad, and I oppress and so be an authority myself. That isn't anarchy.


and there was anarchy mass looting,raping,murdering is anarchy. In an anarchy you have no police force, no military and there will always be someone in that type of society that will kill,rape,plunder.

Again: it isn't anarchy, looting etc, cuz you RULE over others. The looters in that society are exally the police forces and army of today: they decide what the rules are and decide what the rest have to do. People start to loot etc cuz they need money..., cuz they are oppressed by the current sytem, and since that system is protected by violence(police...), they can only use violence against it. But in anarchism, if someone would still be unequal(well, in true anarchism that wouldn't exist anymore), using violence won't be a good way to do something, since that can come back to you, and there are plenty of other possibilities, cuz there isn't any authority anymore who keeps your unequality. So I believe the crime would become much lower. I don't know if there will always be someone who will kill etc, I think people don't act outside the society, without any influence on it, but act different if the situation is different.

And in a democratic-republic like we have the government is in theory supposed to answer to a higher authority... the people,its a circular balance of authority. When that circular balance of authority is thrown off oh lets say like in the case of some African nations which the people have "elected" dictators which appoint no one to a road commission to ensure that roads are properly upheld, and we see as a result the collapse of the automobile use in those countries because there is no self installed order. Now you may say in that system the dictator answers to no higher authority.. you would be wrong, eventually people rebel and that is why there are continued revolutions in Africa. You may also say that our democratic-republic is no longer a true democratic-republic and that it answers to no authority... you would again be incorrect.. that is why we have freedom of press to report on the goings on of the government

Good point of the 'circle authority'. Still, I don't think the people have that much influence. The media only brings government-propaganda-news, and almost nothing of the bad things they do( read 'Necesary Illussions' from Noam Chomsky if you wonna know more about it. He talks about the propaganda-model, which say this(and he has prooven it with a lot of material). It's much easier to bring something conventional, and you don't need so much proof, then when you say something that doubt the government), so you don't even know 'bout it, so you also can't be an authority for the government.


. As to perfect capitalism would not have a government.. you are thinking of communism. CAPTITALISM CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT GOVERNMENT. All institutions placed in a position of authority move towards becoming more powerful.. including surprise surprise CORPORATIONS!! Corporations move towards wiping each other out and thats the way it would be we would eventually have one huge corporations ruling over everyone.. it is true that governments impose some monopolies and our government in my own opinion places too many restrictions on corporations in America that is why jobs go over sea's... but there must be anti-monopoly laws of some form to keep one mega-corporation from arising. Also corporations however large they may grow cannot be expected to keep social order... that is why we have a socially ordained order. Corporations and capitalism also rely on science .. science is not possible in a anarchy. In an anarchy there is no uniform measuring unit,currency,market, ect. As in regards to New Orleans it was in anarchy that is why there were surprise surprise! lootings,murders,rapings,ect. ect. The police and other executive branches could not help citizens because of these violent and chaotic events. Without order they could not help because they would be shot at, the innocent would be shot at, ect.
Capitalism= You have two cows, you sell one cow and buy a bull.
Anarchy= You have two cows, you shoot your neighbor and take his cow.

Capitalism is for concurrention, which would prolly exist more without a government. Right now, the concurrention isn't fair cuz of the subsiditions and importtaxes etc. Without the government, the 3rd World would have more chances, and will become more rich. Our economical system(also capitalism) will suffer from it, but that doesn't meanthe whole system of capitalism would disappear. It could be that big corporations can still use that much power that they can let small companies disappear, but they still need the customers. If the customers are aware enough, they won't support such one. If a company really oppress people and becomes like a state, people won't like that and find an alternatif. It's possible that a corporation becomes a government, cuz people don't always give a shit 'bout what a company does. But hey, I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist, I don't like what capitalism does today.
And plz stop the million times heard connection with murder, I've allready told that that can't be anarchy, so it's bullshit to do. If there is no government, and you have 2 cows and you shoot your neighbour to have a cow, then you become the new government. In anrchy, no-one would possess a cow, all cows will be from everyone, if you want milk, you just milk one, and the cows and the bulls will find each other easier, so there would be much more cows.

Sin Studly
10-15-2005, 12:26 PM
Fuck, are you still here????

memento
10-15-2005, 01:34 PM
Why are you still here? You have nothing to contribute to academic debate because you are ignorant.

Sin Studly
10-24-2005, 05:07 AM
Dush, stop posting. You're dumber than shit, you're an emotional whining pussy bitch, you're annoying, insecure, sleazy, ugly, naive, pseudointellectual... the list goes on.

It's fucking depressing how many negative qualities I can list without even mentioning the fact that you're a nigger.

memento
10-24-2005, 05:39 AM
OK I'll stop posting.

the_offsprings_monkey
10-24-2005, 11:16 PM
This Thread Sucks

Punk Rock Geek
10-24-2005, 11:18 PM
OK I'll stop posting.
No, ignore him. I can't believe how racist some of you are. I can't believe how ignorant this entire topic is!

memento
10-25-2005, 01:46 AM
Justin has to attempt to make fun of me. It's a BBS institution. Didn't you know?

Sin Studly
10-27-2005, 05:32 AM
Hush up, mooncricket.

guitar_and_drummer_guy
10-27-2005, 05:06 PM
UM if you think anarchy would work well why dont u just try it. grow all your own food becuase without any money you couldnt buy any mae your own stuff because there wouldnt be any stores so um you would be too busy to have any fun other than all that crap though its seems like it would be fun ........................FOR A COUPLE DAYS UNTIL YOU DIE OF STARVATION

T-6005
10-27-2005, 07:18 PM
UM if you think anarchy would work well why dont u just try it. grow all your own food becuase without any money you couldnt buy any mae your own stuff because there wouldnt be any stores so um you would be too busy to have any fun other than all that crap though its seems like it would be fun ........................FOR A COUPLE DAYS UNTIL YOU DIE OF STARVATION

I think this guy just shut everyone arguing for anarchy down completely.

T-6005
10-27-2005, 08:05 PM
Pretty good. But I think he'd say that whoever he bartered with for the food will be a good person at heart and give him more. Or something.

NOAMR
10-28-2005, 03:57 AM
UM if you think anarchy would work well why dont u just try it. grow all your own food becuase without any money you couldnt buy any mae your own stuff because there wouldnt be any stores so um you would be too busy to have any fun other than all that crap though its seems like it would be fun ........................FOR A COUPLE DAYS UNTIL YOU DIE OF STARVATION

Here is my reply cuz you all want it that much:
First off I never sayed it would be certain there will be no money, only experience can show which system will work the best. But if there is no money, you wouldn't BUY things off course. You would simply trade things, or mutual aiding(I explained all these things allready). Off course there will be shops, perhaps that will be just places where you bring the products you don't need anymore and take the ones you need, perhaps that would be a trade center, perhaps it will simply work with money.
I think there will be a lot more time to have fun, since only the things that are needfull would be done. People will look farther then "happyness=money=work", they will try to find a balance between the free time they want and the things they want in that time. Also, people will do more the jobs they like, cuz there isn't any difference in earning anymore(everyone just do whatever he can). Well, at least this is in h mutual aid system.

memento
10-28-2005, 04:06 AM
LOL food is only from shops. I never knew that. I thought you could grow your food from like the ground.

NOAMR
10-28-2005, 06:23 AM
LOL food is only from shops. I never knew that. I thought you could grow your food from like the ground.

Off course, but if everyone need to do that, and also produce the rest of his needs, it could take a long time, what was the point of guitar and drummer guy. So you better work together, exhange etc. The result is more then just the sum of the parts.

Sin Studly
10-28-2005, 02:59 PM
You mean like, Capitalism?

memento
10-29-2005, 02:26 AM
The division of labour has existed pre capitalist societies, so has a medium of exchange. A state is not needed for currency. A state is not needed to supply food.

Sin Studly
10-29-2005, 05:24 AM
You mean like, inefficient tribal groups with no centralised leadership, simply begging to be taken over by efficient and organised foreign fascist powers?

memento
10-29-2005, 05:37 AM
Depends, you'd have nukes so perhaps MAD would mean no one would dare invade.

memento
10-29-2005, 06:56 AM
I haven't seen that question answered convincingly anywhere. What would happen to all the modern warfare technolgy of the state?

memento
10-29-2005, 08:40 AM
what would happen to the weaponary of modern states.

NOAMR
10-29-2005, 10:14 AM
Yes, I think he means capitalism. All you'd need for that to work is some kind of organized body powerful enough to regulate it...

NOAMR, have you ever heard of inflation? Have you read -any- history; because if you had you wouldn't advocate bartering. You sound like your scrambling for answers. Any answers. Even with that mentality you're actually defending anarchism's flaws, instead of proving how it's better. You can't even explain how anarchism is better than any current [non third world] country's system. If you yourself can't think of how it's better, you sure as hell can't actually believe we'd all live better lives without government. Or atleast, you shouldn't. No system is flawless. You're ideas seem to be based on a process of revolution, pixiedust, then utopia. It'll never happen. Unless you've got pixiedust. Do you have pixiedust?

Euhm, nope, I don't mean capitalism, at least not what it is today and what most people understand from it. There won't be any exploition etc like today, people will work together in collectives, decentralized. So there won't be one überstructure/boss, but things will happen from the base. So each individual will have more influence.
Yup, have heard off inflation, euhm, think, it's like, everything goes well, a lot off production, that becomes too much, so the factories have too sell it very cheap, not? So I don't see what is the problem, in the free society, the person who has produced too much, will bring it to the 'shop' or just immedtiately to the custumers, so he find out he has a rest, okay, he perhaps has to throw it away(if it's food anyway), so well, he won't produce that much next time.
So you wonna know what would be better in an anarchist world? Simply: there won't be any oppression, repression... You say 'better then a NON THIRD WORLD country', well, that's the problem, we live so good here because we exploit the third world, and a lot off others. They try to get us in their carcas, hope that we will go the way they want, and they manipulate us that way that we don't even see it. This seems like a sweet world, but it's fake.

memento
10-29-2005, 10:55 AM
If like, overnight all governments vanished? Well, modern-modern weaponry uses lots of acess codes that only 1337 gov. people know. So a lot of it would become useless play stuff. What is usuable would be stolen by people with acess to it. So you'd probably see existing militaries establihing themselves in concentrated areas, creating police states. It'd become an odd patchwork as certain areas try to expand into nongoverned territory. Closeby areas would compete with one another over areas they both claim, with the possible effect of creating war between competitors. Ofcourse, nobody would want a fucking militia ruling them, so you'd see any militia that stretched too far be cut off. None of it would be stable. The stablest outcome I could see is a re-emergence of city states.


Yep, the military would rule most likely becuase they'd be the only ones to have any order in their ranks anyway.

But even the stuff that has access codes can be used. You'd have so much weapons grade nuclear material you could make your own bombs.

No matter what the anarchists say I can't see them getting by this, unless of course the utopia emerges from the ashes of WWIII where most of the weaponary and population has expired.

guitar_and_drummer_guy
10-29-2005, 10:59 AM
Off course, but if everyone need to do that, and also produce the rest of his needs, it could take a long time, what was the point of guitar and drummer guy. So you better work together, exhange etc. The result is more then just the sum of the parts.


BUT TO WORK TOGETHER SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO BE IN CHAGRE (HMM OULDNT THAT MAKE THAT PERSON A FORM OF GOVERNMENT) OR NOTHING WOULD GET DONE AT ALL

guitar_and_drummer_guy
10-29-2005, 11:00 AM
Any Form Of Government = No Anarchy

memento
10-29-2005, 11:04 AM
Yup, have heard off inflation, euhm, think, it's like, everything goes well, a lot off production, that becomes too much, so the factories have too sell it very cheap, not?


General inflation is the general rise of prices over time. It means money is worth less. For example at an inflation rate of 10% a year £10 in 2005 will only be worth £9 in 2006 in real terms. i.e. the reduction of purchasing power of currency.

What you're talking about is over-production or supply.

Inflation can also occur in disruptions to supply, for example a poor harvest means food prices increase. Although this is strictly inflation it isn't really what we mean by inflation, what we mean is general inflation.

There are also many causes. Poor households have a higher marginal perpensity to consume. So every $ they earn is spent more. Spending more means demand increases, demand increases and supply remains constant obviously prices rise. So 0% unemployment means inflation.

memento
10-29-2005, 11:05 AM
Any Form Of Government = No Anarchy

Wrong. A skeleton government can remain. That's what anarco-minimalists are all about IIRC.

guitar_and_drummer_guy
10-29-2005, 11:48 AM
But thats not REAL anarchy is it its a CHEAPSHIT knock-off of something thats IMPOSSIBLE!! though it would be awesome if it was possible

memento
10-29-2005, 11:51 AM
I do not pretend to define what 'real' is. 'real' love, 'real' hurt or 'real' anarchy.

Paint_It_Black
10-29-2005, 12:15 PM
Yes you do. You define "real" as whatever the majority think it is. I, on the other hand, define "real" as whatever a worthy elite (chosen by me of course) think it is.

memento
10-29-2005, 12:47 PM
I disagree esp. in this cause for hte majority think anarchy is like you know people going round killing each other, no law etc.

Sin Studly
10-29-2005, 07:10 PM
And if you attempted to convert a large population to syndico/communo/whatever-anarchism, that's exactly what would happen.

NOAMR
10-30-2005, 09:42 AM
BUT TO WORK TOGETHER SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO BE IN CHAGRE (HMM OULDNT THAT MAKE THAT PERSON A FORM OF GOVERNMENT) OR NOTHING WOULD GET DONE AT ALL

So why schould that be? Cuz you know nothing else? In a collective, people will just decide together who does what, and they remain doing it. They know that the more they produce, the more they have, for the whole commune.

NOAMR
10-30-2005, 09:46 AM
Any Form Of Government = No Anarchy

Not strictly. Anarchy means no rule, so no oppression, no-one who is higher and can tell how is have to be. But a government who gives advise("laws" you don't have to follow), can still be anarchistic. Power corrupts, so there isn't so much chance they will stay so honest.

NOAMR
10-30-2005, 09:48 AM
Yes you do. You define "real" as whatever the majority think it is. I, on the other hand, define "real" as whatever a worthy elite (chosen by me of course) think it is.

I would define real as whatever YOU think is real, it's the way you see society. That's different for everyone off course, so there isn't ONE reality.

Sin Studly
10-30-2005, 09:55 AM
You still haven't managed to explain how anarchism could work, only how great and happy-wonderful it would be if it did.

NOAMR
10-30-2005, 09:58 AM
You've in no way whatsoever described a working system for anarchy. You're not explaining how these results are obtained and maintained. This is nothing more than a colorful description of what a utopian society would be like.

I didn't mean't to give an explanation why it would work, you asked me why it would be better. You can't simply say how it would work, cuz you tell people how they schould live then, and that's against anarchy. You can give an example how it could be, yes, but I've done that alot here allready. I simply don't believe this system is good, I don't believe people have the right( or the abbility) to rule over others. I believe people can think for themself, if you let them to, and I don't believe some people are better then others. It's not simple to stop people being a ruler, one of the best manners is: simply don't accept it, don't follow him. But I don't know how I can let people stop, and start to think for themselfs, that's up to them(so up to you).

NOAMR
10-30-2005, 10:06 AM
what would happen to the weaponary of modern states.

(I know, this is allready a kinda old question, but I haven't answered it yet)

Well, that depends off how the anarchy will be achieved. If it is simply, with a quick revolution(which isn't the best way, I think), the revolutionaries will destoy them prolly(well, if they are smart:)). If the system will just die slowly(par example by no voting: no-ones vote anymore, so no-one gets elected. Before it's unaniem, the government won't have the support of the people anymore, and so these will protest(destroy their weapons, against their repression, so that repression schould minor too).

Sin Studly
10-30-2005, 10:13 AM
I didn't mean't to give an explanation why it would work, you asked me why it would be better. You can't simply say how it would work, cuz you tell people how they schould live then, and that's against anarchy. You can give an example how it could be, yes, but I've done that alot here allready. I simply don't believe this system is good, I don't believe people have the right( or the abbility) to rule over others. I believe people can think for themself, if you let them to, and I don't believe some people are better then others. It's not simple to stop people being a ruler, one of the best manners is: simply don't accept it, don't follow him. But I don't know how I can let people stop, and start to think for themselfs, that's up to them(so up to you).

Wouldn't letting people live how they want lead to... y'know, having Governments? Even Fascist Governments? I mean, Hitler and Mussolini were voted in by the people.

NOAMR
10-30-2005, 10:24 AM
Wouldn't letting people live how they want lead to... y'know, having Governments? Even Fascist Governments? I mean, Hitler and Mussolini were voted in by the people.

I mean: ALL the people, so you can't tell that they HAVE to follow laws etc, cuz some don't want that. And not because someone is voted, that what he does is really wanted, politicians are really good in manipulating, in letting you see something different(example:that there is really a lot of crime/ another country is really dangerous), so that they can do their repression without someone questionning it. If people want a government( nice nice, following others and not think(it's cool to be a robot:s)), I have no problem with them, but they schouldn't involve ME. I don't want it, so keep playing yourself, but let me be, I don't have to follow you stupid laws.

Little_Miss_1565
10-30-2005, 11:28 AM
I don't want it, so keep playing yourself, but let me be, I don't have to follow you stupid laws.

Actually, tough guy, you do.

T-6005
10-30-2005, 11:49 AM
Actually, tough guy, you do.
I can't even make sense of what he says, personally... it used to make sense, back when we were talking in layman terms... I think he's getting too complicated for himself, so that what he's saying no longer makes any sense to anyone.

memento
10-30-2005, 01:08 PM
I think we should send this world to mother fucking hell and destroy what accretion did over millions of years and fucking blow it apart in a day or two.

NOAMR
10-30-2005, 02:41 PM
Actually, tough guy, you do.

Ya okay, but that's what I mean is the problem. If you guys wonna say to each other what they schould do, and no-one of you have problems with that, I have no problem with that. But if you tell me what to do(or someone else who doesn't want it), I do, cuz you tell me how I schould lead my live. Then I don't live how I want to.
And well, I've personnally decided I won't do it, and so for me, I don't have to.

wheelchairman
10-30-2005, 02:53 PM
I personally believe that sex with infants is exciting.

Little_Miss_1565
10-30-2005, 05:24 PM
Ya okay, but that's what I mean is the problem. If you guys wonna say to each other what they schould do, and no-one of you have problems with that, I have no problem with that. But if you tell me what to do(or someone else who doesn't want it), I do, cuz you tell me how I schould lead my live. Then I don't live how I want to.
And well, I've personnally decided I won't do it, and so for me, I don't have to.

On a desert island, maybe what you propose might have some chance. But you don't seem to take into account that in order for a community to produce things, they need raw materials. Raw materials can be hard to come by. What happens when one community has something another community desperately needs--like water.

And, in any society, you are subject to that society's rules. Yes, you do have to follow other people's laws. I'd really love to see you argue in court that you don't have to do what it says just because you've "personally decided" you won't.

guitar_and_drummer_guy
10-30-2005, 05:25 PM
ummm I THINK YOURE A FUCKIN FREAK

guitar_and_drummer_guy
10-30-2005, 05:26 PM
ummm I THINK YOURE A FUCKIN FREAK


that was to wheelchairman

wheelchairman
10-30-2005, 05:34 PM
Let me guess? Huffing and hash excite you?

Your stupidity just bought you a one way ticket to my ignore list.

Sin Studly
10-30-2005, 09:29 PM
I mean: ALL the people, so you can't tell that they HAVE to follow laws etc, cuz some don't want that.

Yeah, well, y'know, the point of voting in a fascist government is cause they keep the people they consider a threat to themselves in line. Do you expect people to be voting in Hitler, saying 'Oh, that Hitler guy, he'll sure keep us in line, but I hope he leaves the homosexuals and criminals and communists alone because they simply don't want to be in the Nazi state'. The thing is, most people don't want other people to steal their possessions and stab them in the face without the police arresting them for it. Just because somebody 'wants to stab you in the face and not get arrested for it' doesn't give them the right to.

Christ, NOAMR, you're the biggest dumbfuck ever. Do you not realise that without law and order, bottom-feeding worthless tards like yourself would get stabbed in the kidneys within eight minutes?

droogiedroogie1
10-31-2005, 03:36 AM
The Nazi forms a coherent thought. Nice. Yeah, law and order's cool. That show rules forever.

memento
10-31-2005, 04:49 AM
Do you not realise that without law and order, bottom-feeding worthless tards like yourself would get stabbed in the kidneys within eight minutes?

Anarchists even the classic anarchists don't advocate no law and order. Kropotkin (a classic lefty) WAY before jurists caught on saw Law as a formulation of customary rules which are needed like you shoudln't kill, steal etc. and the wealth of laws arising due to capitalism i.e. contract, tort etc.

What he is against exactly what you are arguing that in order for the customary rules to operate you need the secondary rules which are mostly to do with private property and economics and the maintaince of the status quo. Anarchists and Marxists argue you don't need these secondary norms.

Now Kropotkin argues there shoudln't even be customary rules but that's his penal theory becuase he believes that the criminal has a disease which can be solved by love. But that's his own theory. But the viewpoint that anarchists do not want law and order is very typical of what the people think. Anarchists merely want an extremely basic legal system with merely primary customary rules which society has had before. Some argue there shouldn't even be that but most classic thinkers accept the distinction between primary and secondary rules of society.

Edit: the best way IMO to think abou their viewpoint is to think that the 'legal fictions' as leftists call it enable governments to slaughter millions of people either by act or omission. For example, international law has the concept of private property enshrined in it. This has transformed to intellectual property rights.

These property rights mean people die in poor countires because they cannot afford meds. They also mean technlogy cannot be freely transferred from the rich nations to developing nations in order for environemntal protection. So in the end the criminal law saves how many people a year? But how many people does insistance on private property kill? millions. And it's destroying our Earth too.

These are the types of things people argue against when they say "no law". not the customary rules which humans need in order to get on with each other.

Sin Studly
10-31-2005, 06:00 AM
Proper anarchists aren't as stupid as NOAMR, whose sole argument seems to be "governments have no right to tell people they aren't allowed to do what they want". I've read up on syndico-anarchism, communo-anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I think it's all bullshit, but I do realise that not all anarchists are as stupid as NOAMR.