PDA

View Full Version : Dear anarchists,



Al Coholic
02-04-2009, 09:37 PM
So there are a lot of you that advocate some form of ultra democratic self rule of the people. That's cool. But I'd like you to recognize that, for about 99% of the general population, the term anarchy means no government. Its definition is synonymous with pandemonium, chaos, and ruin. It brings to us images of orderless looting and violence. There's no arguing this, it just does. It's the very definition of anarchy.

But then there are some that claim anarchy has another definition. Which is really confusing because it is actually incompatible with the first definition. Something cannot be both left and right, light and dark. You cannot have order and disorder all at the same time. You describe your vision of an ideal society that functions without the strict heirchy that is the norm. Which may in fact be backed by well articulated theories and maybe even some scientific data.

Regardless, we still hit that same wall again and again. "Uh, that's not an anarchy, because if it was I would just rape you and steal all your stuff and there isn't anything you could do about it cause there's no rules and you're fucking stupid."

Look, I'm not arguing for or against your point of view. But if I get a hamburger with no cheese, it doesn't mean that goat cheese is ok. It means there's no god damn cheese on my burger. If we're talking about anarchy, well, 99% of us agree that means no system of rule whatsoever. Unless you're talking about the most naive concept of society where everyone does what they're supposed to just cause, you're talking about some kind of system of rule that enforces itself. Which is the very definition of government, no matter which way you structure it.

All I'm asking is that you come up with something different to call yourselves. I don't really care what. Make it good, why not? But not anarchists. You're taking away the validity of your own argument by being so stubborn. And not that you need any more reasons, but you're also lumping yourselves in with every teenager that buys an anarchy patch, screams "fuck the police" at punk rock shows, and advocates anarchy because its cool in a 'nonconformist' way without thinking through their point of view any further.

Just put together a simple, one to two sentence definition of your beliefs in the way that every other form of government can be defined and give yourselves a different name.

-Al

wheelchairman
02-04-2009, 10:22 PM
Some ideas:

Chaos Theorists
Destructionists
Lawlessness
Disorder
Exploding Orphanage

Al Coholic
02-04-2009, 10:26 PM
Those are band names.

Budzy
02-04-2009, 10:50 PM
Theres normally cheese in Cheeseburgers, maybe that might be a better choice.

Thomas
02-04-2009, 10:59 PM
Exploding Orphanage

This is the only reasonable idea for a name, I say.

RageAndLov
02-04-2009, 11:28 PM
You're absolutely right Al Coholic!
It's just like calling Blink-182 punk, even though they are not punk.

jacknife737
02-05-2009, 12:03 AM
This is the only reasonable idea for a name, I say.

Agreed. It just seems the most logical.

RageAndLov
02-05-2009, 12:11 AM
You could call the Anarchists for Autoarchists since many support the idea of Autonomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy)

wheelchairman
02-05-2009, 03:00 AM
Actually Rageandlov, I think Anarchists should be called Autocrats.

Or how about Lucy Lawless'?

Little_Miss_1565
02-05-2009, 06:59 AM
Look, I'm not arguing for or against your point of view. But if I get a hamburger with no cheese, it doesn't mean that goat cheese is ok. It means there's no god damn cheese on my burger. If we're talking about anarchy, well, 99% of us agree that means no system of rule whatsoever. Unless you're talking about the most naive concept of society where everyone does what they're supposed to just cause, you're talking about some kind of system of rule that enforces itself. Which is the very definition of government, no matter which way you structure it


Anarchy burger, hold the government!

Free?
02-05-2009, 08:11 AM
All that chaotic, disorder and destruction anarchy bright image was used to confront the clean, reasonable and safe dictatorship of majority, which wasn't as perfect as it said to be. It was just an image, a symbol to disturb and annoy ones and unite the others. It was a scream against being told what you have to be, it was a counterattack to defend your individuality. I think about anarchy like that. Too bad that there are ways too many ordinary people as well as trupunx who think that destructive anarchy can be a serious salvation.

0r4ng3
02-05-2009, 08:13 AM
Anarchy burger, hold the government!
That was perfect.

Anyway, why would anarchists want to be called something else? No other word in the English language (or any language, for that matter) is as cool-sounding and hardxcore punx!

Paint_It_Black
02-05-2009, 09:22 AM
All I'm asking is that you come up with something different to call yourselves.

Until they do let's just call them "Idiots". It's shorter and easier to spell.

Seriously though, this is what I seem to be always saying. If you label yourself as an "anarchist" then you might as well label yourself as an idiot, because that's what 99.999% of the population will immediately classify you as. It's self defeating.

It's like if teachers called themselves pedophiles because they really love children. The word might technically work...but yeah.

metalmania
02-05-2009, 11:40 AM
hm i see that you re standing in the chaos of concept.hm maybe you re trying to tell this concept with easy things anyway no matter.i guess everybody's a philosopher about anarchism,hm its so cool and im happy cause im standing beetween gineous people here hehe anyway cheese,burger,milk ...... no matter what do you believe you live it my dear friends;) (oh my poor language maybe someone can translate em )

IamSam
02-05-2009, 12:21 PM
hm i see that you re standing in the chaos of concept.hm maybe you re trying to tell this concept with easy things anyway no matter.i guess everybody's a philosopher about anarchism,hm its so cool and im happy cause im standing beetween gineous people here hehe anyway cheese,burger,milk ...... no matter what do you believe you live it my dear friends;) (oh my poor language maybe someone can translate em )

Here....I'll try.


*blah blah blah...you're wrong...random list of food*

0r4ng3
02-05-2009, 12:22 PM
I still can't believe that Anarchy Burger was unironically quoted in xXx.

Little_Miss_1565
02-05-2009, 12:53 PM
I still can't believe that Anarchy Burger was unironically quoted in xXx.

...I'm sorry, what?!

metalmania
02-05-2009, 02:43 PM
hehe i know :those re blablabla for you so you can live beetween animal party(original by alkolik) and an-burger ;) so where is signature of lie?;)

chicapowerpunk
02-05-2009, 03:13 PM
Anarchy, that is what you call chaos .... mmm
The punk is a state of mind violence agreed well with the noise.
The government seeks only the benefit of, uh, never that of the citizens,
:cool:

Al Coholic
02-05-2009, 03:20 PM
I like autocrats.

HornyPope
02-05-2009, 04:17 PM
Here is an open reply to anybody concerned.

A world with no government doesn't necessarily lead to disorder, chaos and violence. You're assuming that it does, but why should anyone listen to you? Your logic is based on nothing more than your intuition and your current understanding of the world. You haven't brought forward a single variable that directly or indirectly relates lack of government with either violence or chaos.

You're like the guy in the party in the who's telling everybody to buy TODAY because the interest rate is going to increase tomorrow, yet he has no concentrate evidence to back up his argument. See, everybody can speculate based on intuition, but real logic is based on abstract terms and reliable models. In order to make a convincing argument, you have to break your argument into basic concepts and show causality.

Fear not, there are a number of philosophers and eminent men who have done exactly that. I am sure most of you will be familiar with Thomas Hobbes, but there are also others who have envisioned a "natural" world--before it became a social world with the governments and all that.

Aristotle -
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html

Charles de Montesquieu
http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol.txt (scroll down for Book I)

David Hume
http://www.constitution.org/dh/origcont.htm

J.J. Rousseau
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_03.htm


All fascinating reads (albeit not easy) and a good exercise at abstract thinking. If you read the texts, you will see that they begin with breaking the world into abstract and basic concepts, and then they provide their hypothesis as to what went on in this world. Anybody who wants to do any form of serious research nowadays absolutely has to do exactly that. Instead of relying on intuition, you have to reduce your models to their most basic forms and prove causality on abstract level.

For instance, to prove that absence of government leads to higher frequency of criminal behavior, you have to first look at what is criminal behavior.

Are crimes committed to fulfill desires? To fulfill needs?

Do criminals commit crimes because they don't know any better and they need education?

Is fear of punishment a deterrent against criminal behavior?

If the government legislates that downloading music is a criminal act, then do we have 100 million new criminal?

If there is no government to legislate crime, are there criminals?

Like I said, abstract thinking.

Al Coholic
02-05-2009, 05:45 PM
Fear of punishment is the biggest deterent to crime. I don't need to break anything down or think abstractly. A community with no government within itself can be reasonably prosperous, relying on the security of the governments around it being stable.

Lets not get into philosophical arguments of what is a crime or isn't based on societies definition. You getting robbed, wether deemed a crime or not, still sucks ass. I don't need to "break my argument into basic concepts and show causality" in order to understand a world with 6 billion people and no government will be a stinking hellhole. There's so many obvious reasons its not worth debating.

That_Guy91
02-05-2009, 06:24 PM
...I'm sorry, what?!

The Vin Diesel movie, not porn.

HornyPope
02-05-2009, 07:13 PM
Lets not get into philosophical arguments of what is a crime or isn't based on societies definition. You getting robbed, wether deemed a crime or not, still sucks ass. I don't need to "break my argument into basic concepts and show causality" in order to understand a world with 6 billion people and no government will be a stinking hellhole. There's so many obvious reasons its not worth debating. What do you think makes an obvious argument obvious?

Your common sense is a product of your extremely limited experience in a very short life span. It's why we study and carry out scientific experiences--so we can reason beyond our gut feeling.

Do you know that stinking obvious concepts like for example interest on a loan or a pet dog are completely alien to somebody like a villager in Africa? If you told him you bought a pet and you spend money to feed him and to cloth him (instead of a dog providing for you), he'd think you're a fucking retard.

But that's just more abstract thinking...


Fear of punishment is the biggest deterent to crime. Not true. Your moral conscience is your biggest deterrent to commit a crime. For instance, you're probably thinking to yourself : "lol if I could get away with theft, I'd steal ALL the time". Yes, but that's because your moral conscience doesn't regard this crime as bad. On the other hand, you probably wouldn't rape your sister. Why, because you're afraid to get caught? Nope, because it's against your moral coscience.

Again, more abstract thinking...

Al Coholic
02-05-2009, 07:27 PM
No, I didn't say fear of punishment is the biggest deterent for me. I said its the biggest deterent to crime. As in crime in general. Take away the government aspect of it and the world turns to shit. I don't need to run an experiment with 6 billion people to know that something so massive and complex as a global society cannot function without an organization that rules them, for them, with enough authority over them.

We could argue wether morality or punishment is a bigger deterent for crime, but either way take out the punishment factor, and you're left with more or less half the deterence. Where's the logic in thinking there'd be less crime then?

I totally get what your saying though, you just couldn't have picked a much worse argument to make your point. Saying that crime might subside to a greater extent without the very mechanisms meant to deter it is just dumb sounding. Besides, you're ignoring the root causes for those crimes. An absense of all government would lead to inevitable economic collapse. People will do just about anything to survive.

Bipolar Bear
02-05-2009, 07:47 PM
The truth is, nobody knows what would happen if there was anarchy. There's no right or wrong answer in these threads, just a bunch of theories. If you're trying to prove something, you're already off to a bad start because that won't be possible, I'm afraid. It's mostly speculation.

As for me, I'm perfectly content with saying I don't know what would happen. There are advantages and disadvantages to all political systems. Anarchy would at least provide ultimate liberty and equality, but the advantages to a structured government are also enormous.

I would like to be given the choice to live in anarchy if I wanted to. I'd maybe choose to live in a country and obey its laws and system, but at least it wouldn't feel like I was forced to. Living on a piece of Earth which isn't "owned" by anyone is basically impossible right now, which feels a bit ridiculous.

wheelchairman
02-06-2009, 04:25 AM
The truth is that nobody supports anarchy because most people have too much to lose and too little to gain.

and xXx was a fucking great movie. You suck if you don't like it.

Paint_It_Black
02-06-2009, 05:25 AM
A world with no government doesn't necessarily lead to disorder, chaos and violence. You're assuming that it does, but why should anyone listen to you?

Because we can give examples? It's not like there have never been countries without governments before.

I'm assuming that it would lead to disorder, chaos and violence because that is what usually happens. Just like when I throw an object in the air I assume it will come down again. Logic and abstract thinking is not even required.


I like autocrats.

Really? You don't sound like you like them.

HornyPope
02-06-2009, 09:23 AM
No, I didn't say fear of punishment is the biggest deterent for me. I said its the biggest deterent to crime. As in crime in general. If you read a little about about criminality theory, you will learn that the biggest reason people commit crimes is because they don't feel that what they are doing is bad. If you (or anybody) was told he ABSOLUTELY HAD to commit ONE crime and he was presented with a list of crimes, he wouldn't chose that crime based on how likely he is to get caught and what are the consequences for being caught. He would chose to do the crime based on how morally comfortable he feels on doing it.

Is that common sense or not?


I don't need to run an experiment with 6 billion people to know that something so massive and complex as a global society cannot function without an organization that rules them, for them, with enough authority over them.
You may be right or you may be wrong. However, your intuition does not constitute proof, no more than an intuition of somebody to claim that interest rates are going up tomorrow constitutes proof. There are financial analysts and economists who spend their entire life building models and applying formulas to predict interest rates--and even they get it wrong very often.

That's why we're having this conversation, because I don't give a shit about your intuition no more than you would give a shit about mine. We each want proof. We want logic, right?


Besides, you're ignoring the root causes for those crimes. An absense of all government would lead to inevitable economic collapse. People will do just about anything to survive. Oh, so now we're going back to root causes? Ok...

Do people commit crimes because they want something but their economic status does not allow them to purchase it?

So poor people commit more crimes than rich people?

When you say "people will do just about anything to survive", does it mean that once they have enough supplies to assure 'survival', they will not do anything else?

How come people--you, I, our friends, parents--own goods that go beyond essential survival?

Hmm...



It's not like there have never been countries without governments before.

I'm assuming that it would lead to disorder, chaos and violence because that is what usually happens. Just like when I throw an object in the air I assume it will come down again. Logic and abstract thinking is not even required.
There have also been countries WITH governments and yet the differences between them are striking. How come Thailand is so different from France? How come 21st century England is different from 18th century England?

Do you think Saudi Arabia is different from Germany because of the nature of their government? Maybe it's because they have different religions? Maybe because one of them is in a middle of a fucking desert? Maybe it's because one of them is a net exporter of oil and the other is a net importer?

All very interesting variables. Can you analyze that without abstract thinking?

When you throw an "object" in the air, it might or it might not come down depending on what the object is. If you throw a rock, it will. If you throw a helium balloon, it probably won't. That's why we study the nature of the object before we make gross generalizations.

Lithuanian Offspring
02-06-2009, 12:54 PM
What do you think makes an obvious argument obvious?

Your common sense is a product of your extremely limited experience in a very short life span. It's why we study and carry out scientific experiences--so we can reason beyond our gut feeling.

Again, more abstract thinking...
Although you have a point when it comes to presenting an argument, you have to admit that because society functions only on governmental principals now, and our moral/societal/what have you views are based on that, there can not be a state that works on the principals of the philosophers you mentioned.
So it's not a far stretch to say that if we were to lose the government, there would be a fuck load of chaos and destruction. The governments of the world can't even control there people, needless to say the people won't be able to look after themselves.

Al Coholic
02-06-2009, 01:57 PM
Like I said Hornypope, I understand what you're saying. But saying that just because I don't have the specific example of our global society collapsing without government doesn't mean I can't forsee it happening.

You know what's probably never been tried? You ever have the hiccups and have someone startle you to get rid of them? Maybe we should try that with terminal cancer patients. Just have somebody yell BOO! everytime they turn a corner. Maybe you could scare the cancer right out of em. Now my intuition says this is mildly retarded, but after all my intuition doesn't constitute proof. So we don't really know if we can scare cancer out of people, because there's no scientific evidence.

Or maybe, if we took all the stoplights down, people would drive safer. Who's to say? It's possible that if you took them all down people would crash into eachother, but its not impossible that they'd drive a lot safer.

Seriously dude, I get what you're saying. But you picked an awful, terrible, stupid example. I also like how you ignored this:


We could argue wether morality or punishment is a bigger deterent for crime, but either way take out the punishment factor, and you're left with more or less half the deterence. Where's the logic in thinking there'd be less crime then?

Maybe you oughta give it a rest?

NGNM85
02-06-2009, 03:13 PM
So there are a lot of you that advocate some form of ultra democratic self rule of the people.

Thats' very simplistic, but otherwise pretty good start. You can't really do justice to 200 years of philosophy wioth one sentence, but thats' a pretty good start.


That's cool. But I'd like you to recognize that, for about 99% of the general population, the term anarchy means no government. Its definition is synonymous with pandemonium, chaos, and ruin. It brings to us images of orderless looting and violence. There's no arguing this, it just does. It's the very definition of anarchy.

The problem is people aren't differentiating, and theres' definitely been an effort to blur the distinction, between "anarchy" in it's common conversational usage, like "The kids were running amok, it was anarchy!" synononomous with random disorder, chaos, and the political Anarchy. Kind of like Big C Communism and little c communism.


But then there are some that claim anarchy has another definition. Which is really confusing because it is actually incompatible with the first definition. Something cannot be both left and right, light and dark. You cannot have order and disorder all at the same time. You describe your vision of an ideal society that functions without the strict heirchy that is the norm. Which may in fact be backed by well articulated theories and maybe even some scientific data.

This is hardly unique. Take the word "liberal", which i don't hear anybody complaining about. Usually it brings to mind some educated, upper-class lefty intellectual type, we connect it to political liberalism, the trend for autonomy and freedom, we think of Rousseau, Locke, Thomas Paine, etc. However, when used in relation to economics the word liberal has the opposite connotation, it's a fetish of the far-right. Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, etc., are all big proponants of economic liberalism. It's all context, I mean 8 or 9 tenths of all meaning is derived through context. It depends how the word is used, I think people can handfle the fact that one word has more than one meaning. the bigger problem is theres' so much misinformation as to what Anarchism ACTUALLY is. My best advice is to ask an Anarchist, or read some of the literature. Emma Goldman or Alexander Berkman have some good introduction pamphlets only a page or two long, theres' Bakunin's contribution to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the best current work would be Noam Chomsky's "Anarchism", but it might be a bit dense for a laymen. Peter Marshall's "Demanding the Impossible" is the best overview of Anarchist thought but it's bible-thick and really in-depth. Anybody who's interested I can provide more literature recommendations, and a lot of this stuff is available for free on the web, or at you're local library.


Regardless, we still hit that same wall again and again. "Uh, that's not an anarchy, because if it was I would just rape you and steal all your stuff and there isn't anything you could do about it cause there's no rules and you're fucking stupid."

Well, that rests on a certain conception of human nature. Namely that humans are inherently, incredibly atavisrtic creatures that need a tight leash. This is of course pretty commonly held and trumpeted by establishment figures because it legitimizes they're existence. However, if you think it through it's absolutely ridiculous, in addition to being fallacious.


Look, I'm not arguing for or against your point of view. But if I get a hamburger with no cheese, it doesn't mean that goat cheese is ok. It means there's no god damn cheese on my burger. If we're talking about anarchy, well, 99% of us agree that means no system of rule whatsoever.

See above.


Unless you're talking about the most naive concept of society where everyone does what they're supposed to just cause, you're talking about some kind of system of rule that enforces itself. Which is the very definition of government, no matter which way you structure it.[quote]

See above.

[QUOTE=Al Coholic;1256133]All I'm asking is that you come up with something different to call yourselves. I don't really care what. Make it good, why not? But not anarchists. You're taking away the validity of your own argument by being so stubborn.

It's not stubbornness, basically, if you think about what you're saying, is we should call ourselves something else because nobody understands or has misconceptions about what we are. It's not my fault that this problem exists, i mean, I'm really trying to clear up these misconceptions, anybody wants to understand more about Anarchists, how I became an Anarchist, etc. I think there are lots of people who believe essentially what i do who would never think of themselves as Anarchists, because they're not familiar or because they have misconceptions and are scared of the word. i am not scared of the word, I call myself an Anarchist because thats' what i am.



And not that you need any more reasons, but you're also lumping yourselves in with every teenager that buys an anarchy patch, screams "fuck the police" at punk rock shows, and advocates anarchy because its cool in a 'nonconformist' way without thinking through their point of view any further.

Oh, there are plenty of those dickheads, some on this forum, again, not naming names. However, i can't takle reponsibility for every stupid person who doesn't know what they're talking about. While punk rock and Anarchy are too often lumped together, there are some legitimate bands that are Anarchist or basically Anarchist, like Crass, or Bad Religion.


Just put together a simple, one to two sentence definition of your beliefs in the way that every other form of government can be defined and give yourselves a different name.

Well, the thing is you really can't express any political philosophy properly in two sebntences, I mean, do you really think two sentences can cover Communism, or Jeffersonian democracy? These ideas are too complex. But if you want a gross simplification, you were pretty straight on in the beginning with "a form of democratic self-rule", as I recall.

Al Coholic
02-06-2009, 05:00 PM
You can explain it all you want, and while you seem to be a minority of 'anarchists' that have a good understanding of the theory of your beliefs, you're still going to hit that same wall again and again and again. Poll 1000 people to define anarchism, and atleast 950 will basically tell you its no a state of no government, and no rule(which an overwhelming majority would agree leads to inevitable chaos and ruin). And in that sense they're correct, there's been no conspiracy to blur the meaning, that's just society for you. Your theories are based on a different kind of rule, so it gets confusing when you call yourself a word that 99% of us consider meaning no-rule.

If you wanna stick to the word that's up to you, but the simple word is very detrimental to your cause. Most people will dismiss you as crazy and/or naive, and you can't blame them. You oughta pick your battles but that's just my opinion.

HornyPope
02-06-2009, 05:33 PM
Now my intuition says this is mildly retarded, but after all my intuition doesn't constitute proof. So we don't really know if we can scare cancer out of people, because there's no scientific evidence. Do you understand where your intuition comes from?

In five years from now, you would have learned (hopefully) a whole lot of new material. What you once thought as common sense would be either supplanted or re-enforced by hard, scientific evidence... or you could live with your intuitions.


Although you have a point when it comes to presenting an argument, you have to admit that because society functions only on governmental principals now, and our moral/societal/what have you views are based on that, there can not be a state that works on the principals of the philosophers you mentioned.

None of these philosophers are anarchists. I only brought them as example of men who have built concrete, scientific models for the purpose of their argument. I was talking about abstract thinking and they have been excellent at that, so I urge everybody to read it. See, instead of making assumptions like: government=>order, or lack of government=>disorder, they have dug in deeper and examined the "nature of men" to uncover a host of very interesting variables which helps explain our society the way it is.
So if you're going to say: "okay, I'm going to suppose a society without a government, how do I expect the people to behave?", you have to analyze so many variables at their abstract level. This is what I've been trying to get at.

Regarding your comment that cannot be a state that functions on the principles of the philosophers, I hope you know that these philosophers very influential throughout the course of our history. Aristotle was ready pretty much by everybody who is anybody, including the others on the list. Rousseau was read by Washington and the fathers of the American state and pretty much everybody else in the 19th century etc...

Basically, all that they said has been recycled and re-told in one form or another and now this philosophies form the essence of our "common sense". Funny how that works...

Little_Miss_1565
02-06-2009, 07:01 PM
In a world with no leaders, who'd start all our wars?


That_Guy91: Why the eff would the Vandals be quoted in a Vin Diesel movie?

nieh
02-06-2009, 07:20 PM
I feel the same way about satanists that don't worship satan. I get the feeling that it's mostly people that went through a satanist/anarchist phase when they were young and stupid, and rather than admitting they used to be young and stupid and moving on, they just keep the words and try to apply a more "intelligent" meaning to them and wind up looking just as dumb as before.


It's just like calling Blink-182 punk, even though they are not punk.
It's EXACTLY like that.


That was perfect.
Yes, it was.

That_Guy91: Why the eff would the Vandals be quoted in a Vin Diesel movie?

I think the more important question is "why did that movie exist in the first place?".

wheelchairman
02-07-2009, 05:51 AM
Fuck you Nieh, xXx is a great movie.

And the villain is an anarchist.

nieh
02-07-2009, 08:48 AM
What was your favorite part, the scene where xXx jumps the 15 foot fence on his motorcycle with no ramp, or the part where Vin Diesel and that chick start making out and it looks like they don't know what they're doing? I actually downloaded it recently with the rifftrax commentary but haven't watched it yet. That should be a good time.

wheelchairman
02-07-2009, 09:51 AM
The makeout scene was hillary. It was like they had no idea about human customs but were described what kissing was, and then tried to act it.

The car/bridge scene was awesome. His whole training was pretty sweet too.

That_Guy91
02-07-2009, 10:41 AM
the makeout scene was hillary.

? .

ad8
02-07-2009, 12:10 PM
The makeout scene was hillary.
Well, I think I'd rather not watch the movie then...

nieh
02-07-2009, 12:11 PM
His whole training was pretty sweet too.

xXx is hardcore enough to know what human blood smells like.

Free?
02-07-2009, 12:59 PM
Dear anarchists, don't watch xXx.

Paint_It_Black
02-07-2009, 07:01 PM
There have also been countries WITH governments and yet the differences between them are striking. How come Thailand is so different from France? How come 21st century England is different from 18th century England?

Do you think Saudi Arabia is different from Germany because of the nature of their government? Maybe it's because they have different religions? Maybe because one of them is in a middle of a fucking desert? Maybe it's because one of them is a net exporter of oil and the other is a net importer?

All very interesting variables. Can you analyze that without abstract thinking?


You're completely right. That wasn't what I was talking about though. How many examples can you give of countries without governments that functioned well? I know "functioned well" is vague so feel free to interpret it any way you see fit.

I'm honestly very interested in your thoughts on this and I'm glad you're taking the time to discuss it.



When you throw an "object" in the air, it might or it might not come down depending on what the object is. If you throw a rock, it will. If you throw a helium balloon, it probably won't. That's why we study the nature of the object before we make gross generalizations.

Again this is true, but again you slightly dodged my point. My point was that objects usually come down again. You can certainly study the nature of the object first and form a better understanding of the likelihood, but if you lack the motivation to do that you can still form a decent guess based on past results. Right? I'm not saying it's the perfect method but it's one that will generally see you through pretty well.

Al Coholic
02-07-2009, 10:21 PM
When it comes to sociology there are no aboslutes. So HP here can pussyfoot around all day, making one dumb, articulate sounding argument after the next. And he will cherrypick only the points within your posts he can disagree with....douche

HornyPope
02-08-2009, 07:14 PM
Again this is true, but again you slightly dodged my point. My point was that objects usually come down again. You can certainly study the nature of the object first and form a better understanding of the likelihood, but if you lack the motivation to do that you can still form a decent guess based on past results. Right? I'm not saying it's the perfect method but it's one that will generally see you through pretty well.

If you are a betting man and all you want to do is to know how often that object is going to come down, then yes a sufficient sample of past performances is going to be all you need to calculate future probabilities.

However, if you want to understand beyond your intuition, you have to understand objects for what they are. One way to understand objects is see how they are used in our society. If I see people using their legs to kick a ball, I understand that this playful purpose of a ball. If I see people fighting over a ball, then I understand the meaning of a "possession" which happens to be a ball. If I see somebody kicking a ball and breaking a window, then I understand that balls can be used to break windows. Now, all of this (and so much more) is what makes a ball a ball, right?

All of this knowledge accumulates and forms the part of me that is called "common sense". Until that common sense is challenged, it will constitute my understanding of what a ball is.

On the other hand, if you want to make any of the following generalized arguments: 1- that without balls people wouldn't be playing soccer. 2- without balls people wouldn't have possessions 3- without balls people wouldn't break windows.

Then you need to look at the ball abstractly. You need to define what the ball is in terms of ALL THE VARIABLES that make it what it is.

Now, a ball is a very simple construct so I'm sure everybody has enough common sense to figure out that although the game of soccer wouldn't be what it is without balls, possessions would still exist and windows would still be broken by other objects.

Unfortunately, "government", "order", "violence" are much more complicated terms and so thinking abstractly becomes so much more important when dealing with them.

Examples:

If your official government is exiled and you are occupied by foreign forces, who is really your government? The one who effectively gives orders or the symbolic one that is government by title only?

Is it enough to give orders, or does it also require execution of such orders to qualify as government?

Are your parents a form of government? Is religion? How about your peers?

What if you are influenced by a subtle force like advertising, is that a form of government?

What if you don't obey, are you really governed?


So.... when somebody says that government (called the independent variable AKA explanatory variable) is what makes our society "stable" and "peaceful" (the dependent variables), I can interject and say that it's not really the government, it's the executive POWER behind it. Or I could say it's not really the POWER, rather it's our SUBMISSION to this power (this is how revolutions happen: people no longer choose to submit and they challenge the power). Or I could say it's not really the SUBMISSION, rather it's the WILL to submit to the government. Or I could say that it's not really the WILL, rather it's the LACK OF ALTERNATIVE (we don't really WANT the government, but feel powerless and we wan't protection so we accept a government - those of you who read Rousseau btw, this is exactly his thesis). Or I can say it's not LACK OF ALTERNATIVE but rather the fact that we are simply too lazy and to complacent to think of a viable solution because there are fucking people out there who still use their stupid fucking intuitions as a form of proof. Etc... etc... etc...

And I could go like this for a while... It still doesn't solve anything though because even at the deepest abstract level, it's still only my INDUCTIONS. Which means that YOUR INDUCED abstractions will be different from mine and so really, it's probably impossible to come up with abstract ideas so general that they will sit with us as the "Truth". But that's another story all together...

Now, to get back to the argument. If we removed the government but actually bothered to develop a really, really cool idea to replace the government with something else at its most abstract... would that work?????

Hmmmm.... I'm not answering this one.



You're completely right. That wasn't what I was talking about though. How many examples can you give of countries without governments that functioned well? I know "functioned well" is vague so feel free to interpret it any way you see fit.

I'm honestly very interested in your thoughts on this and I'm glad you're taking the time to discuss it.

Don't know any. It's possible these "countries" really did exist but they haven't left behind a lot of written history, or maybe we haven't uncovered them in archeological digs, or maybe we have uncovered them but we couldn't understand much about their way of life, let alone their rulling principles.

After all, humanity is fairly old and our understanding is so, so limited.


When it comes to sociology there are no aboslutes. So HP here can pussyfoot around all day, making one dumb, articulate sounding argument after the next. And he will cherrypick only the points within your posts he can disagree with....douche

Hey, you were the one who pulled a hypothesis out of your ass based on your intuition. I merely shot it down. Be thankful I actually took my time to formulate an argument instead of saying "oh yeah, well MY COMMON SENSE can kick your common sense's ASS LOAL"

p.s. somebody quote me on the last phrase pls

Paint_It_Black
02-08-2009, 07:46 PM
If you are a betting man and all you want to do is to know how often that object is going to come down, then yes a sufficient sample of past performances is going to be all you need to calculate future probabilities.

Right. And since we can't think of any examples in which anarchy has been a good thing I'm going with my intuition that it would be unlikely to be a good thing in the future.

I can enjoy abstract thinking but when it comes to political theories I take a very practical approach. I guess because it's not a subject that I care much about in general. It is interesting to read the opinions of intelligent and educated people on the subject though. And I especially enjoyed how you aren't even really giving an opinion, more like a lesson in thinking. This may not be the best example for your lesson though.


Be thankful I actually took my time to formulate an argument

This wasn't directed at me, but if it makes you feel better I appreciated the effort you put in. Most people would be too lazy to do that for a subject like this on an internet forum.

I dislike handing out this much praise, yet I really am pleased whenever anybody is willing to put in this much effort to a discussion. Especially on the difficult side.

Al Coholic
02-08-2009, 08:45 PM
Hey, you were the one who pulled a hypothesis out of your ass based on your intuition. I merely shot it down. Be thankful I actually took my time to formulate an argument instead of saying "oh yeah, well MY COMMON SENSE can kick your common sense's ASS LOAL"

p.s. somebody quote me on the last phrase pls

You shot nothing down. You merely retorted with the most drawn out "you don't know that for sure you can't prove it" argument I've ever heard.


A world with no government doesn't necessarily lead to disorder, chaos and violence. You're assuming that it does, but why should anyone listen to you? Your logic is based on nothing more than your intuition and your current understanding of the world. You haven't brought forward a single variable that directly or indirectly relates lack of government with either violence or chaos.

Back to the original argument here. I get the whole abstract thinking thing and what you're saying. But the essense of your argument is that this obvious example of common sense isn't necessarily true. But the likelyhood of it is so great I don't bother to mention that its not the only possibility. When talking about sociology, you can make this argument to anything and everything, so it's very annoying.

Like I said, if you took down all the streetlights, street signs, road lines, the whole shabang-a-bang there's a 99.9999% likelyhood people will not drive as safely. So when I make the statement "If you think we'd all drive safer without this stuff, you're an idiot", there's bound to be some douche somewhere thats going to tell me its not impossible. This douche doesn't even believe it, he just has a problem with me using absolutes wherever there is the most insignificantly minute possibility the statement could be wrong. As though we all didn't already know.

I suppose we could all pussyfoot like you, and instead of making a statement like "Complete abolition of all systems of government would lead to chaos and ruin" I should instead say something like:

"It is extremely likely that abolition of government would lead to choas and ruin, however, there is an extremely small chance the world would actually prosper. We can't be comepletely sure of this, as we don't have the complete scientific data with specific examples of 6 billion people without any government, but I'm pretty sure. Now excuse me, I need to change the tampon in my foot."

Bipolar Bear
02-08-2009, 09:04 PM
No offense Al, but your view on anarchy is way too simplistic. You're assuming that the only thing that holds a society together is the government when there are in fact many more variables to consider. In one society, lack of government may lead to chaos while in another, it may work out. It's possible to make a more credible theory about anarchism, but you can't pretend to know what's going to happen if you have such a simple view on the matter.

Al Coholic
02-08-2009, 09:16 PM
Please show me where all these prosperous anarchistic regions are. The ones that are better off with no government whatsoever, and in no way dependant on governments around them.

Satanic_Surfer
02-09-2009, 01:53 AM
I do agree with the point Al Coholic has in the thread's first input. The definition of "anarchy" has never really been a political definition. It was first used by the rich in Europe to refer to the revolutionaries. Already by then it was used to create the image that they simply were creating chaos and disorder. It is of course understandable that it might have seemed that way to them as the revolutionaries ideals would not match the rich people's ideals.

However, some people found themselves taking on the label "anarchist" for the sake that they had a vision of a people ruled state without governement. But government today has larger democratic influence than by then, so the word "anarchist" is more likely to seem somewhat offensive to anyone who is for democracy. I dont know how widely spread the "chaos and disorder" image of anarchy really is. I know that it's still there to some degree, but to me it seems as an image that is fading. Although it's just my own assumption based on my own experiences from where i live.

However, i've never found the word "anarchist" to make the ideology itself justice. There is of course a whole lot of ideas and struggle beyond the concept of anarchy, among the anarchists. It's kind of like saying you're a "democrat". Where im from (where there is no party simply entitled "democrats") it is then a very general term and doesnt tell more than that you want the parliamentary democracy. So it wouldent say much about your ideals or your visions. Whether you're a nationalist right or a socialist left, you can still be just as much democrat.

So in a way, now as then, when talking about the political agenda, the word "anarchist" is maybe not always appropriate. As the revolutionaries in France and Spain back then, the ideology is a libertarian form of socialism. After the fall of Sovjet "socialism" has to some been the same as "highly authoritarian", wich would not be the case if you're seriously relating to Marx books on socialism.

So i find the term "libertarian socialist" to be more correct. It describes a larger structure, thought behind it, and is not a term considered meaning "chaos and disorder". I think the term "anarchist" has always, since it was started to be used, has had a form of schock value to it. Considering that most people here are familiar with punk rock, i dont think i need to go further into that.

What is seriously ironic though is when you're talking to someone who's definition of socialism is simply an authoritarian state, when saying you want "socialism without a state" people tend to get a bit confused. Anyways, the term "anarchist" is fine in the correct situations, but it far from describes the ideals. And using the term "anarchy" when talking about visions for a future society, that would easily be a mistake.

Satanic_Surfer
02-09-2009, 02:03 AM
Please show me where all these prosperous anarchistic regions are. The ones that are better off with no government whatsoever, and in no way dependant on governments around them.
That's a pretty smart question, and i think you know that. You've talked about your view on the meaning of "government", stated that any form of structured rules is a form of government. With that definition there simply would be no region better off without it. Secondly all regions are dependent on their neighbour governments. Pretty clever question right there. :)

Bipolar Bear
02-09-2009, 11:35 AM
Using such a broad definition of government would lead even an anarchist state to be described as one with a government. I think we all know what is really meant by government here, so let's not get too caught up with the terminology.

metalmania
02-09-2009, 01:49 PM
satanic surfer's explanation was so good but anarchism's history is so long and this date is B.C 300 and this philosophic view was born with giritian zenon's explanation!anyway anarchism is not just " listen the punk,drink or childish things" anarchism is the " to be free like a tree;to live in a brotherly like forest"

NGNM85
02-09-2009, 03:22 PM
You can explain it all you want, and while you seem to be a minority of 'anarchists' that have a good understanding of the theory of your beliefs,

Have you taken a significantly thorough survey of the Anarchist community to merit such a charge? Theres' quite a few morons out there, but they don't constitute a majority.


you're still going to hit that same wall again and again and again. Poll 1000 people to define anarchism, and atleast 950 will basically tell you its no a state of no government,

Again, this is a word with two different meanings, the most common being a chaotic state of being. However, this is hardly an unusual phenomenon in the english language, I can keep rabbits in a pen, I can also use a pen to write a letter. Same word, two meanings that coulsdn't be further apart. Or the example I gave, in economic terms, Bush would be considered by many to be an extreme liberal. The issue is context. I thibnk the problem is more that most people have had virtually no exposure to Anarchist ideas, so they don't know what it means. Also Anarchism, not surprisingly, is alweays painted as a negative by authoritarians of any kind, resulting in all sorts of propaganda and nonsense, which is hardly new. Take this example from Emma Goldman's "Anarchism: What it is and What it Stands For" written about a hundred years ago: The emotions of the ignorant man are continuously kept at a pitch by the most blood-curdling stories about Anarchism. Not a thing too outrageous to be employed against this philosophy and its exponents. Therefore Anarchism represents to the unthinking what the proverbial bad man does to the child,--a black monster bent on swallowing everything; in short, destruction and violence.



and no rule(which an overwhelming majority would agree leads to inevitable chaos and ruin).

Thats' the common dismal depiction of human nature one gets from the purveyors of authorized ideas. First and foremost this should be questioned simply because it obviously suits the interests of power structures. Note that this includes an inherent fallacy, it asserts that humans are by they're essential nature SO atavistic and greedy and irresponsible they can't possibly be entrusted with the responsibility of they're own lives, so a very small group of men needs to control everybody's life. This has been the view of the American political establishment going back to John Jay; "The people who own the country ought to run it", and James Madison saying the purrpose of our government was to protect the opulent minority from the poor majority. This is still the authorized opinion, even in fairly liberal circles, and has been expressed by the inspirations on our contemporary policymakers like Neibuhr, Lasswell, and such. Unfortunately this doesn't stand up to a seconds' worth of analysis. First of all it's pretty unlikely an organism would develop such a self-destructive capacity, pretty unusual in nature for obvious reasons. There are studies of infants, you can look at national crime statistics, it just doesn't stand up. In fact, it's the opposite of the truth. Monolithic power structures are the largest INSTIGATORS of violence and suffering. Wars, crusades, genocide, etc. I recently cited a statistic that 75%, of New York's inmates come from the same 7 neighborhoods, which are all essentially slums, thats' not coincidental, just like it's not coincidental that 6 of the 5 buliion people on earth live in or below poverty (including roughly 1 in 8 Americans.) or that the top 2% of America's population control around 60%
of it's wealth.



Your theories are based on a different kind of rule, so it gets confusing when you call yourself a word that 99% of us consider meaning no-rule.

Self rule IS essentially "No rule", at least in the sense we understand it. For example, John Kerry, a liberal democrat, can say with a straight face that a national healthcare program (Which would be much more efficient.) is not politically possible, while according to fairly recent polls around 80% of the population support such a program, and it's done, with varying degrees of success throughout western europe, and all around the world. Because what the people want is largely irrelevant to the political process. So, if you define government as something imposed from above, then Anarchism means absolutely no government. However, Anarchism does NOT stand for no organization, structure, or rules of any kind.


If you wanna stick to the word that's up to you, but the simple word is very detrimental to your cause. Most people will dismiss you as crazy and/or naive, and you can't blame them. You oughta pick your battles but that's just my opinion.

Well, it depends on the situation. I mean, if people jump to irrational conclusions about something they don't understand, thats' they're fault, they're a stupid person, if they've been misled, they're the victim of deceit.
It's also not my word, it's Pierre Joseph Proudhon's, and thats' what it's been called for 200 years.

NGNM85
02-09-2009, 10:01 PM
I do agree with the point Al Coholic has in the thread's first input. The definition of "anarchy" has never really been a political definition. It was first used by the rich in Europe to refer to the revolutionaries. Already by then it was used to create the image that they simply were creating chaos and disorder. It is of course understandable that it might have seemed that way to them as the revolutionaries ideals would not match the rich people's ideals.

It became a political definition in the early 1800's when Proudhon set the basis for Anarchist thought. He described Anarchism as "a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties. In it, as a consequence, the institutions of the police, preventive and repressive methods, officialdom, taxation, etc., are reduced to a minimum. In it, more especially, the forms of monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based on the commune." A pretty basic, simple explanation that still holds true today.


However, some people found themselves taking on the label "anarchist" for the sake that they had a vision of a people ruled state without governement. But government today has larger democratic influence than by then, so the word "anarchist" is more likely to seem somewhat offensive to anyone who is for democracy.

Only to those who don't understand it, for Anarchism would be the furthest evolution of "direct democracy."


I dont know how widely spread the "chaos and disorder" image of anarchy really is. I know that it's still there to some degree, but to me it seems as an image that is fading. Although it's just my own assumption based on my own experiences from where i live.
However, i've never found the word "anarchist" to make the ideology itself justice.

Does any single word do a complex philosophical tradition justice? Does the label "Nihilist" or "Existentialist" in any way communicate even a billionth of the meaning as reading Nietzsche's books? These are labels which signify more complex concepts for the ease of discourse.


There is of course a whole lot of ideas and struggle beyond the concept of anarchy, among the anarchists. It's kind of like saying you're a "democrat". Where im from (where there is no party simply entitled "democrats") it is then a very general term and doesnt tell more than that you want the parliamentary democracy. So it wouldent say much about your ideals or your visions. Whether you're a nationalist right or a socialist left, you can still be just as much democrat.

Sort of, there is a certain amount of room in the Anarchist tradition, but most fall within a fairly small range in my experience.


So in a way, now as then, when talking about the political agenda, the word "anarchist" is maybe not always appropriate. As the revolutionaries in France and Spain back then, the ideology is a libertarian form of socialism. After the fall of Sovjet "socialism" has to some been the same as "highly authoritarian", wich would not be the case if you're seriously relating to Marx books on socialism.

"Socialist" just means advocating collective operation of the means of production. It could be authoritarian, as it was in the former USSR, Marx's socialism was authoritarian, at least in a transitory sense. (Which was the big disagreement between himn and Bakunin, who I think has been vindicated by history.) Then theres' Libertarian Socialism, which is essentially Anarchism, they're pretty interchangeable.


So i find the term "libertarian socialist" to be more correct. It describes a larger structure, thought behind it, and is not a term considered meaning "chaos and disorder". I think the term "anarchist" has always, since it was started to be used, has had a form of schock value to it. Considering that most people here are familiar with punk rock, i dont think i need to go further into that.

I think the only reason that it would be shocking is to people who don't really understand it. i know the etymology of the word, i know where it comes from and it doesn't scare me. I follow in the intellectual tradition of Emma Goldman, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Chomsky, etc. I tell people I'm an Anarchist because it's the truth. Plain and simple.


What is seriously ironic though is when you're talking to someone who's definition of socialism is simply an authoritarian state, when saying you want "socialism without a state" people tend to get a bit confused. Anyways, the term "anarchist" is fine in the correct situations, but it far from describes the ideals. And using the term "anarchy" when talking about visions for a future society, that would easily be a mistake.

Those people don't totally understand socialism, then.

RageAndLov
02-09-2009, 11:33 PM
Self rule IS essentially "No rule", at least in the sense we understand it.


Self rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy) IS NOT essentially "No rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy)





However, Anarchism does NOT stand for no organization, structure, or rules of any kind.


I don't understand how anarchy - no rulership - could stand for organization, structure or rules.

RickyCrack
02-10-2009, 12:11 AM
Right. And since we can't think of any examples in which anarchy has been a good thing I'm going with my intuition that it would be unlikely to be a good thing in the future.

there was once upon a time a section in ireland which worked in a completely utopian society. so in theory it works, however, within their society all anarchists would have to give up the internet, electricity, and learn how to farm and pork fat bitches who looks like amish cows. and i'm not willing to give up only jerking off the fat bitches on internet porn.

T-6005
02-10-2009, 05:55 AM
anrchy r u doin ok

Smash_Returns
02-10-2009, 07:34 AM
The problem with self-rule is that it assumes everyone will choose a reasonable orderly life. And for about 50%, I'd say it's true. For another 30%, I'd say it would be primarily true, but they'd occasionally cross the line. The rest would take "Self-Rule" and make it "No Rule" for them.

Self Rule is great -- in theory, but then again so is Communism, and we all know the kind of shit that is Communism.

The thing is, both Communism and Self-Rule is that they are both extremes. Total Control and Regulation, or No Control and Regulation. However, both theories fail to take human nature into account, and the best solution lies some place in between. Whether it be Democracy, Socialism, or some other form of government, there has to be some checks and balances system to make sure that no single person is abusing the rights of others (which will happen in any system regardless of how well the system is constructed). So you have a government while it works, and once it fails or becomes overly corrupt, then it's time for a Revolution.

T-6005
02-10-2009, 07:39 AM
On a serious note -

STOP TALKING ABOUT HUMAN NATURE.

God damn - what do you know or understand about "human nature," and why do you refer to it to back up your arguments like it's an absolute reality?

It is neither proof or a well-established set of behavior phenomena, so why do you keep referring to it?

Stop it.

Al Coholic
02-10-2009, 08:37 AM
Oh c'mon, that's just ridiculous.

First off, let's recognize that we're talking about what I consider the primary definition of anarchy - no government whatsoever. I don't think a single person here is advocating this. The whole point of this thread was to avoid confusion like this because not a single person here that calls themselves an anarchist really believes we'd be more prosperous with no system of rule. I'm not even sure why you people keep arguing this.

That aside, you do not have to be a sociologist to make obvious claims about society. I'm pretty damn sure if there were no laws, people wouldn't go on the way they do. Morality only goes so far and differs from person to person. While I can't predict exactly what would happen, and nobody can, it is absurd to argue I can't predict that shit will inevitably hit the fan. All I have to go on is a few psychology and sociology classes I took a while ago, but I'd know that much if I was twelve. I don't need to be a physics professor and have done extensive research on gravity to know if I jump off a big building, I'll probably fall to the ground and hurt myself. Jeez, you fuckin people...

RageAndLov
02-10-2009, 11:03 AM
Self Rule is great -- in theory, but then again so is Communism, and we all know the kind of shit that is Communism.


In Cuba Communism has kinda worked out, much better than any other countries anyways. Cuba is the only country where you could say that Communism succeeded.

RageAndLov
02-10-2009, 11:09 AM
Oh c'mon, that's just ridiculous.

First off, let's recognize that we're talking about what I consider the primary definition of anarchy - no government whatsoever. I don't think a single person here is advocating this. The whole point of this thread was to avoid confusion like this because not a single person here that calls themselves an anarchist really believes we'd be more prosperous with no system of rule. I'm not even sure why you people keep arguing this.

That aside, you do not have to be a sociologist to make obvious claims about society. I'm pretty damn sure if there were no laws, people wouldn't go on the way they do. Morality only goes so far and differs from person to person. While I can't predict exactly what would happen, and nobody can, it is absurd to argue I can't predict that shit will inevitably hit the fan. All I have to go on is a few psychology and sociology classes I took a while ago, but I'd know that much if I was twelve. I don't need to be a physics professor and have done extensive research on gravity to know if I jump off a big building, I'll probably fall to the ground and hurt myself. Jeez, you fuckin people...

I agree with you! People isn't talking about Anarchy, they're talking about something else, mostly autonomy. And that is what this debate is all about: Why does the anarchist call themselves anarchist when they don't believe in no government or or no rules?

And very few of us here on the board are sociologist, and can therefore not give an absolutely correct answer with much research and surveys on what people in general would behave like if absolute no government or no rules became a reality.

HornyPope
02-10-2009, 11:46 AM
Back to the original argument here. I get the whole abstract thinking thing and what you're saying. But the essense of your argument is that this obvious example of common sense isn't necessarily true. But the likelyhood of it is so great I don't bother to mention that its not the only possibility. When talking about sociology, you can make this argument to anything and everything, so it's very annoying.

Like I said, if you took down all the streetlights, street signs, road lines, the whole shabang-a-bang there's a 99.9999% likelyhood people will not drive as safely. So when I make the statement "If you think we'd all drive safer without this stuff, you're an idiot", there's bound to be some douche somewhere thats going to tell me its not impossible. This douche doesn't even believe it, he just has a problem with me using absolutes wherever there is the most insignificantly minute possibility the statement could be wrong. As though we all didn't already know.

I suppose we could all pussyfoot like you, and instead of making a statement like "Complete abolition of all systems of government would lead to chaos and ruin" I should instead say something like:

"It is extremely likely that abolition of government would lead to choas and ruin, however, there is an extremely small chance the world would actually prosper. We can't be comepletely sure of this, as we don't have the complete scientific data with specific examples of 6 billion people without any government, but I'm pretty sure. Now excuse me, I need to change the tampon in my foot."

You can't talk about probability if you don't understand what are you studying.

Here, if you have trouble with abstract, let us try actual examples. Answer the following:

1- Which country do you think has less crime, Canada or the United States?

2- Why? I want to hear at least 10 variables that influence a rise or fall in national criminal activity.


I can enjoy abstract thinking but when it comes to political theories I take a very practical approach.

There is no practical approach with theories. When you theorize, you take all your variables and you explain why they interact the way they do.


This wasn't directed at me, but if it makes you feel better I appreciated the effort you put in. Most people would be too lazy to do that for a subject like this on an internet forum.

I dislike handing out this much praise, yet I really am pleased whenever anybody is willing to put in this much effort to a discussion. Especially on the difficult side.

Thank you. It's really not easy to explain something that is not immediately understandable as you read it.

I'm reading Hegel's lectures on the Human Spirit (1806) and this stuff is just painful. It takes me an hour to go through couple of pages because this material is so convoluted, you have to re-read this stuff like 20 times before you actually get it and even then you're not really sure if you understood all he was trying to get at.

I think this is why we read Aristotle in school because it's few steps lower than the really difficult philosophical stuff, and so it's good to get accustomed to it first. But you notice how he defines a construct like "capitalism" for example--he calls it "the art of making money". Is that really an accurate explanation? Well, maybe not, but how else do you explain a fetish like accumulating wealth when you simply don't have the terminology for it?

T-6005
02-10-2009, 11:47 AM
It seems idiotic to me to refer to a wealth of supposedly general knowledge that boils itself down to speculation, without any sort of logical framework.

I don't care about this anarchy argument - I see no way for it to support itself within a wide population base due to logistical lapses I believe would appear (resources, communication), but I can't prove that.

But moving on - making broad, sweeping claims about human reaction in a certain situation strikes me as ridiculous. Philosophers throughout the ages have grappled with the idea of human nature in tons of different ways, and I just hate to see the term used as a blanket because it doesn't mean anything. There isn't any such thing.

"He'll kill her. That's human nature."
"Puppies are cute. It's human nature to think so."
"Pygmies without the influence of civilization survive in gift economies - it's human nature."

NGNM85
02-10-2009, 08:50 PM
Self rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy) IS NOT essentially "No rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy)

I think you just misunderstood me. In it's final form an Anarchist society would be administered through voluntary participation, and consensus, there would be a process of governance, or administration if you will, but each person would have ownership of that process, unlike wghat we're familiar with, being essentially an observer while being dictated to by a massive bureaucracy. In our system people are mostly spectators, and theres' significant effort on behalf of the establishment that goes into that. So the political apparatus of such a social organization would be drastically alien from any form of political process we're familar with, involving some massive state apparatus. I thought that was pretty clear.

[QUOTE=RageAndLov;1259031][I don't understand how anarchy - no rulership - could stand for organization, structure or rules.

Then you miss the point. It's not against work, society, technology, etc. The problem is that these things are managed or created by systems that cause suffering and deprivation and control peoples' lives. Humans are social creatures and by working together we can better suit eachothers' needs and acheive fullfillment, that can be accomplished without the brutality and dehumanization that is de riguer in the current system. Let me give you a practical example, take some of the Israeli Kibbutzim which were structured along socialist lines. You had farming communities with rotations of duty, responsibilities, however, this was all completely voluntary and administered through consensus. There were rules, but they had to make sense, they had to suit the needs of the community, and were no created or enforced by some massive faceless entity. Structure and organization are great things, but they can and should exist without the monstrous realities we face today.

NGNM85
02-10-2009, 09:15 PM
It seems idiotic to me to refer to a wealth of supposedly general knowledge that boils itself down to speculation, without any sort of logical framework.

I don't care about this anarchy argument - I see no way for it to support itself within a wide population base due to logistical lapses I believe would appear (resources, communication), but I can't prove that.

Actually, one of the best examples of Anarchism in action would be post-revolutionary Spain. MILLIONS of people, encompassing everything from steel mills to resturants, this is in the late 30's, so fairly modern. This went on for a couple years, until the hardline communists and an invasion by Franco's army, backed by Hitler ended it, but still a very impressive acheivement. With the latest developments, which are seriously under-funded, the possibility of sustainability is looking better all the time.


But moving on - making broad, sweeping claims about human reaction in a certain situation strikes me as ridiculous. Philosophers throughout the ages have grappled with the idea of human nature in tons of different ways, and I just hate to see the term used as a blanket because it doesn't mean anything. There isn't any such thing.


There most certainly IS a human nature, unless you buy into the blank-slate hypothesis which conflicts with our current scientific understanding. Now, human nature cannot be measured and calculated and put on paper like the structure of a molecule, or a schematic of an internal combustion engine, it's more complex, and esoteric. However...
Humans are, fundamentally, complex, intelligent mammals. Like all life we have biological functions we seek to satisfy and natural behavior patterns and characteristics. For example, the human brain seems hard wired for language with very specific parts and functions to facilitate this. Now, all other life forms have natural behavior patterns, of course, they are simpler but one can apply the scientific method and discover some basic truths. If we look at studies of human biology, anthropology, psychology, the picture of human nature gets less fuzzy. Honestly we can get some very important answers just by looking at ourselves and our own communities.

Al Coholic
02-15-2009, 09:46 PM
Here, if you have trouble with abstract

Oh for fucks sake, you're still on this. Now look, dude, I don't know how many times I can state it but this is most definately the last. I get the abstract thinking. Maybe if there was no govt it would not lead to chaos and ruin. After all, all I have to base on this is the common sense that comes from my life experience. Even though all of my life experience would have me believe that it is certain, said experiences are subective.

This leads us down an often traveled path in philosophy. Specific instances are used as evidence for a more general or even a universal conclusion, a process known as induction. But since induction in itself is not grounded in logic or facts, there's no certainty behind it. Further down this philosophical path we begin to question what, if anything, is known with certainty. But what other method exists outside of the inductive process? All scientific method is rooted in it.

But that's why while I get where you're coming from with this 'abstract thinking', I completely reject it. You can make that point about anything. I'm going to deal exclusively with the inductive process in all arguments, as most of us normally do. I mean really, you could make the point right now that this is all a false reality like in the Matix. If you throw out the inductive process/common sense as any type of proof, you can't disprove it.

So what then, do you make of the statement that a world without any government is a world of chaos and ruin? Based on my experiences in this world(all tainted by the inductive process), and the limited education I've recieved(someone else's inductive process), I'd say that's accurate.

Ofcourse, there's that one guy that's been reading a lot of philosphy books and can't help himself but to point out that it's not certain because the inductive process is flawed. Unfortunately, that would mean that just about everything based on scientific method - and that encompasses most anything - is logically flawed. While I can accept that on that remote level everything is logically flawed, using 'abstract thinking' to point out how my one statement is flawed seems redundantly annoying. The problem with rejecting the inductive process/common sense is that you're left only with what you know to be absolute. Outside of nontangible arithmatic, you got nothing. So while you're quick to point out the logical flaw in what I said being backed by the inductive process, you have no backing of your own.

And since this is true about everything, what possible reason would I challenge the inductive process.

When the streets are dirty around here they send out streetsweeper trucks. I've observed this countless times, and every time the street is cleaner than before. Suppose we're both at a town hall meeting, and I complain that the streets are dirty and they need to be sent out more often. Are you really gonna waste everyone's time by suggesting that streetsweepers will not necessarily make the street clean? That while we believe this to be true, it is not impossible that getting rid of the trucks alltogether might result in cleaner streets? I think people would understand what you were getting at, and at the same time be annoyed with you as I have been. It wouldn't make what you're saying untrue, and it wouldn't mean we don't understand. It's just that we'd disregard it as irrelevant.


^It's late and I've had a few, so I'm not proof-reading or revising this. Goodnight.

HornyPope
02-16-2009, 05:02 PM
These are all very good points and I'm happy that we can agree there.

However, the abstract thinking is not an argument in itself. All I wanted was to develop a framework to discuss the more complicated and entangled issues where common sense is not enough.

Nor did I want to get into discussions of probability. I am not asking you to prove your theories beyond any reasonable doubts, nor will I pretend to prove mine. After all, these are just theories. All I wanted was to establish the complexity of the situation so we could look for a causal link beyond our immediate intuition.

I have since came up with a better way to get my point through on the subject of government and its relationship with crime and violence.

Previously I have asked you to identify the most significant variables that lead to crime and violence. I will reiterate that challenge. If you can demonstrate that the roles and the functions of the government are the biggest causes behind crime (or reduction thereof) then I will have no choice but to concede the argument.

Conversely, I will advance the following hypothesis. I claim that cultural values, educational attainment, population density, unemployment rate, sense of belonging to a community etc. are all variables that affect crime (positive and negatively) more than the functions carried out by the government. For instance, I claim that halving the school drop-out is more effective at curbing crime than harsher criminal sentences. Reducing unemployment is more effective than hiring 1000 extra cops to police the street.

Can you prove me wrong?

wheelchairman
02-16-2009, 05:07 PM
Reducing unemployment is more effective than hiring 1000 extra cops to police the street.


Technically that would be reducing unemployment. Yes I found the contradiction! I win the argument! Hornypoop!

Al Coholic
02-16-2009, 10:47 PM
These are all very good points and I'm happy that we can agree there.

However, the abstract thinking is not an argument in itself. All I wanted was to develop a framework to discuss the more complicated and entangled issues where common sense is not enough.

Nor did I want to get into discussions of probability. I am not asking you to prove your theories beyond any reasonable doubts, nor will I pretend to prove mine. After all, these are just theories. All I wanted was to establish the complexity of the situation so we could look for a causal link beyond our immediate intuition.

I have since came up with a better way to get my point through on the subject of government and its relationship with crime and violence.

Previously I have asked you to identify the most significant variables that lead to crime and violence. I will reiterate that challenge. If you can demonstrate that the roles and the functions of the government are the biggest causes behind crime (or reduction thereof) then I will have no choice but to concede the argument.

Conversely, I will advance the following hypothesis. I claim that cultural values, educational attainment, population density, unemployment rate, sense of belonging to a community etc. are all variables that affect crime (positive and negatively) more than the functions carried out by the government. For instance, I claim that halving the school drop-out is more effective at curbing crime than harsher criminal sentences. Reducing unemployment is more effective than hiring 1000 extra cops to police the street.

Can you prove me wrong?
Is this supposed to be a trick question? Let's make this easier by grouping the first variables together(cultural values, working toward education attainment, well distributed pop density, a low unemployment rate, etc. as A, and criminal sentences, more cops, more prisons, etc, as B. A targets the causes of crime, whilst B simply enforces the law. Yes, B has a deterring effect but it is mild, people commit crimes for many reasons that have little to do with getting caught. Both are necessities of a prosperous society, and both have a lot to do with government. If there is no government, there is certainly little to no B. The Chaos that ensues leaves no room for A to move in a positive direction.

I don't believe I actually said B is more important than A. They are intertwined to the point that they impossible without one another. My point was that without the government's role in B, society falls apart anyway. A plus B can lead to prosperity, but it seems illogical that just A would do the same job, if not better.

All that aside, you're asking me to prove the hypothesis that "the roles and the functions of the government are the biggest causes behind crime (or reduction thereof)". This is true, and so is your hypothesis. I've already explained that the two are related and cannot exist without one another, and to that extent the roles and functions of government play a role in your hypothesis, making it possible.

However, "the roles and the functions of government" have a more direct role in your hypothesis. Educational attainment, population density, unemplyment rate, etc. are all considered to be the responsibility of government. On a micro level I can't imagine what percentage of the population feels that way and to what degree, but on a macro level, we are certianly dependent on government to fund and administer education, to properly plan cities, and to keep the unemplyment rate low. While the people and the market certainly play a role in this, nobody expects much out of either. Certianly, when unemployment is high, people blame the government as much as the market, and the responsibility of lowering it falls soley on the government. When population density is too high, nobody blames people for having too many kids, or asks their neighbors to leave. Well, some do but again, they aren't held responsible for the problem by society.

Cultural values and community belonging have a more indirect relationship, though they're still largely dependant on the stability of government. I don't think people, on a macro level, will find much belonging in a community gone to shit. Cultural values will have little room for development. Other than providing the stability for them to exist, government however is not typically blamed for a communities lack of pride in itself or cultural values. However, I think this is mostly because this is not measurable in statistics. The unemployment rate can be broken down into detailed statistics, and relationships clearly shown with crime and the economy. You can't accurately graph community belonging and its effects on society. If you could though, I think people would hold the government accountable for that too.


On a final note, let's take a country that has established well both A and B. I'll go with the US because its all I know in good detail of. Certainly here, unemployment has more of an effect on crime than a greater pressence of police officers. I think it's obvious that without B alltogether, the immoral will commit crimes because they can. The moral will soon follow because they have to.

This time I'm sober but again tired...I think you'll get the jist of what I"m getting at from this rough draft of my thoughts.

HornyPope
02-20-2009, 08:28 AM
I understand that everything is intertwined. That's why it's so complicated. However, in our discussion, we want to uncover a causal LINK. We both agree that the government influences society and VICE VERSA, but we want to uncover through what chanels.
Not an easy task, but let's see how well I can articulate it...


Educational attainment, population density, unemplyment rate, etc. are all considered to be the responsibility of government. On a micro level I can't imagine what percentage of the population feels that way and to what degree, but on a macro level, we are certianly dependent on government to fund and administer education, to properly plan cities, and to keep the unemplyment rate low.

SO the question: is this role indispensable?

Were there not schools before government sanctioned school boards and hired ministers of education? Are there not kids who are home-schooled by parents, taught in religious institutions?

Were there not jobs before the government began to play a direct role in the economy? Wasn't unemployment actually lower when everybody just worked the farm?

Above are rhetorical questions... something to think about.

Now, you mention that the "government functions" are important in the stability and deterrent role they play. I'm not going to touch "deterrent" yet, but let's look at "stability".

What does the government do to ensure stability?

You say it watches over the economic welfare of the population. I.E. it looks that the economic growth is stable, it curbs inflation, secures payments for the financially disadvantaged etc...Right?

Yet, we have evidence that countries with DIFFERENT levels of government intervention enjoyed similar growth. Conversely, we have evidence that countries with SIMILAR levels of government intervention have enjoyed different levels of growth.

So what gives? Why the conflicting evidence?

Maybe there are other variables that influence economic prosperity than merely the level of government intervention in economy?

FURTHERMORE, we also have evidence of different levels of "stability" (hard to quantify but work with me) experienced by countries with SIMILAR level of government intervention; AND we have similar levels of stability experienced by country with DIFFERENT level of government intervention.

So maybe stability doesn't really depend on the direct functions of the government?


Cultural values and community belonging have a more indirect relationship, though they're still largely dependant on the stability of government. I don't think people, on a macro level, will find much belonging in a community gone to shit.

Why does a community depend on the government? Don't close communities actually want the government OUT of their business?

Also, why would you a community be gone to shit if people actually cared about it and made sure it wouldn't go to shit?


I don't believe I actually said B is more important than A. They are intertwined to the point that they impossible without one another. My point was that without the government's role in B, society falls apart anyway. A plus B can lead to prosperity, but it seems illogical that just A would do the same job, if not better.

Careful with these loaded statements... If you say they are intertwined, it means that the relationship between the variables is causal but not necessary direct and not necessarily obvious. Yet, as you say this, you also draw a direct link between removing one variable and automatically assuming the rest will crumble. You have to first establish that link before you can make statements of the kind.

Btw, rape is also intertwined in our society. If we removed rape from the society, would it fall apart? Or would it simply CHANGE the way the society functions?


Anyways, I can't really convince you by writing this post a lot. This is merely something to think about and ultimately you're going to take out of what you want. But keep on writing back, this discussion is a lot fun.

chicapowerpunk
03-13-2009, 04:25 PM
Jajaja anarchists are caricatures;)

metalmania
03-13-2009, 04:36 PM
Jajaja anarchists are caricatures;)
hm.its not a good idea .you told like adam smith :D

chicapowerpunk
03-13-2009, 05:00 PM
hm.its not a good idea .you told like adam smith :D

I speak for people like alcholic:cool:

metalmania
03-13-2009, 05:06 PM
nevermind the smitch,ricardo,al and others...echo-politic buried them all to trash of economic history

chicapowerpunk
03-13-2009, 05:13 PM
nevermind the smitch,ricardo,al and others...echo-politic buried them all to trash of economic history

you is a political:cool:yeah baby:cool:

Mellow Chaos
03-26-2009, 04:44 AM
People who learned about anarchy from the media or through Rise Against or from thier weekend anarchist/punk rock anarchist friends in highschool make me laugh.

That being said, I don't think it can work on a global scale. Not that I think the whole having a government thing is working out too greatly, either..

Pre-Franco Spain had some success with Anarchism, as have some other nations, though I personally don't think, again, that it would work on a larger scale. But it's not what everybody automatically assumes it to be. The term 'anarchy' has been slandered by the mainstream media to be 'unruly chaos and madness'.

As an aside, the internet anarchist killed the rugged individualist.

wheelchairman
03-26-2009, 05:03 AM
I don't know, I think Pre-Franco Spain is a good example of anarchy failing miserably.

metalmania
03-31-2009, 01:47 PM
unfortunatelly,spain civil war was a bad experience like 1848-1870 revolution activities

chicapowerpunk
04-01-2009, 04:26 PM
unfortunatelly,spain civil war was a bad experience like 1848-1870 revolution activities


Oh,metalmania.......Well sir historian, Spain is still below......:D

Al Coholic
04-02-2009, 06:49 AM
unfortunatelly,spain civil war was a bad experience like 1848-1870 revolution activities

Care to cite an example of anarchy that actually worked?

metalmania
04-02-2009, 10:37 AM
Care to cite an example of anarchy that actually worked?
so you have to look at jean varlet's "burst" manifest, of course if you can understand

Al Coholic
04-02-2009, 12:12 PM
So the only example of a functional, prosperous anarchy you can site is............... fictional

Mota Boy
04-03-2009, 07:46 AM
It is the onus of each generation to, at the least mentally, test for itself the ideas of its forefathers and, if necessary, repeat their mistakes.





Still, those that have yet to outgrow anarchy by the age of sixteen need to have some sense beaten into them.

metalmania
04-03-2009, 02:05 PM
So the only example of a functional, prosperous anarchy you can site is............... fictional
yeah dude so its your insufficient point!so live it 4eva

T-6005
04-06-2009, 01:37 PM
Edit: another thing. The guy who said "there is no such thing as 'human nature'" is a fucking idiot.
I did not claim that there is no such thing as human nature. I claimed that to use "human nature" as a basis for predictable human behavior when there are countless studies and accounts of human societal self-organization (from Vanuatu to Cuba to the ancient Maya and Egyptians to current Occidental civilization) which, through their very existence, prove that there is no one way in which humans do things, that there is no single objective code of behavior for humans.

I didn't claim that there aren't a specific set of needs that all humans will attempt to fulfill - a human directive, if you will - but rather that you cannot claim that human actions are predictable. The multitude of ways in which human societies have organized themselves since time out of mind should prove that, if nothing else. Using "human nature" as a foundation for your argument is completely fallacious, and whoever attempts it should be shot because they suck.

The shadow
04-07-2009, 12:32 AM
Don't be stupid; it's in man's nature to be anarchist, in some degree. That's man's natural state, disregarding all power.


This is a very, very false statement. In my opinion, if you leave any two persons alone in any situation, one will eventually lead the other. Man's natural state is much more complex than that; it is more natural for the human being to form hierarchical organizations than the contraire. Another form of organization would require, in my opinion, a higher level of thinking. Better humans if you will. Almost perfect humans, one might say.

Humans don't "disregard" power, we pursue it. Anarchy is not a fight against power, it's a power struggle. The system doesn't try to abolish all forms of human power, it only seeks to redistribute that power equally among the members of the society, which is the ultimate form of tyranny: too many people with power but no knowledge of how to use it correctly. This situation always gives origin to chaos and injustice. Like in an angry mob seeking "justice", without rules, without leaders, without any formal organization, bloodshed and insanity are the only certain outcome of the lack of law and law enforcement.

Llamas
04-07-2009, 11:33 AM
The shadow, you seem to know what you're talking about, and I agree with you.

I would like to further add that, it seems pretty unlikely and bizarre that humans would go against the rest of animalian phylogeny by being the only species that naturally prefers to live in disregard of all power. Look at any natural ecosystem in the world; there are ALWAYS hierarchies, always someone in charge, other organisms beneath. That is natural. Humans are the same way; it'd make no sense for them to be different.

Al Coholic
04-07-2009, 06:50 PM
so you have to look at jean varlet's "burst" manifest, of course if you can understand

I'd just like to point out once more, that when asked to produce an example of a prosperous, functional anarchy, this guy cited a fictional book.

renato piquette
04-07-2009, 06:58 PM
I'd just like to point out once more, that when asked to produce an example of a prosperous, functional anarchy, this guy cited a fictional book.

lol,it is known that metalmania is a dumbass

metalmania
04-08-2009, 08:13 AM
I'd just like to point out once more, that when asked to produce an example of a prosperous, functional anarchy, this guy cited a fictional book.
'cause you re very hungry for information and you have to learn somethings about anarchism ;if you talk about it ,if you can learn them all,i can talk to you .damn i forgot:"jean varlet's manifest is not a book.hehe.ok.c ya.

metalmania
04-08-2009, 08:15 AM
lol,it is known that metalmania is a dumbass
wow you re really a comic guy.thank you dude,really thank you.what do you think about genetic flop?

renato piquette
04-08-2009, 02:13 PM
donīt know a shit about it,donīt give a fuck about it.
tell me,what do you think about condoms?do you mindusing them?i didnīt think so,bet youīre virgin,get a life

Al Coholic
04-10-2009, 05:42 AM
donīt know a shit about it,donīt give a fuck about it.
tell me,what do you think about condoms?do you mindusing them?i didnīt think so,bet youīre virgin,get a life

Yeah dude, I bet he doesn't even know what a pussy is. Hey, hey metalmania, do you know what a vagina smells like? NO?!?!?! Didin't think so!!!!! Fucking virgin!!!

Renato man, fuck that guy, but God DAMMIT we're fucking cool man.


Yeah...

renato piquette
04-10-2009, 11:11 AM
Yeah dude, I bet he doesn't even know what a pussy is. Hey, hey metalmania, do you know what a vagina smells like? NO?!?!?! Didin't think so!!!!! Fucking virgin!!!

Renato man, fuck that guy, but God DAMMIT we're fucking cool man.


Yeah...

we are,dude,we are....:cool:

metalmania
04-10-2009, 03:11 PM
hehe!hey alcomic,hey renato pinochet!you re very comic team!you can be the perfect double team!!!anyway you re not politic with your stupid speechs!hehe.what can i say?thank you,hehe really thANK YOU

0r4ng3
04-10-2009, 04:36 PM
... huh?

renato piquette
04-10-2009, 06:54 PM
hehe!hey alcomic,hey renato pinochet!you re very comic team!you can be the perfect double team!!!anyway you re not politic with your stupid speechs!hehe.what can i say?thank you,hehe really thANK YOU

we are not politic?uh,that`s sad,eventhough,i never tried to be....

NGNM85
04-15-2009, 06:08 PM
I'd just like to point out once more, that when asked to produce an example of a prosperous, functional anarchy, this guy cited a fictional book.

First of all theres' a problem with the inherent logic of what you're saying. You're saying, or at least implying, that because you think there has never been a substantial functioning Anarchist or equivalent social structure, that means it cannot possibly exist. Even if the first presumption was true, because a thing has not been done in no way proves that it is impossible. Lots of things are impossible, until they happen. As for real world examples, several on here, myself included, brought up Post-Revolutionary Spain which I think is one of the best examples, I'd also mention as I think I had before, the Israeli Kibbutzim.

Satanic_Surfer
04-27-2009, 01:04 AM
Christiaina in Denmark should qualify pretty well i think?

wheelchairman
04-27-2009, 07:06 AM
Christiania is a great place to buy hash, but if I had to chose between their vigilante justice and the police, the police here would win every time.

Besides, they have their own government.

NGNM85
05-02-2009, 08:39 PM
Christiaina in Denmark should qualify pretty well i think?

I forgot about that. Yeah, thats' also a great example, although much smaller than post-revolutionary Spain, it has many similar characteristics.

NGNM85
05-17-2009, 11:47 PM
This is a very, very false statement. In my opinion, if you leave any two persons alone in any situation, one will eventually lead the other. Man's natural state is much more complex than that; it is more natural for the human being to form hierarchical organizations than the contraire. Another form of organization would require, in my opinion, a higher level of thinking. Better humans if you will. Almost perfect humans, one might say.

You say this as if it were incontrovertible fact. This tends to be the popular wisdom, which is not in any way a testament to it's authenticity. Also this is the position held by contemporary policymakers that the "bewildered herd" need to be brought to heel by the elite minority, "the people who own the country." That this is entirely self-serving to authoritarians alone is sufficient reason to question it's validity. (Beyond that one should just sort of look critically at everything, anyway.) I mean, I doubt you'd take a used car salesman solely at his word. Second this rests on a perception of humans as inherently savage. It's like when I argue with religious people and they keep asking the stupidest questions like "Well if you don't believe in God and sin and don't follow the ten commandments,..why don't you kill people?" I've got to say, "Think about that for a second. If the threat of eternal damnation from a mythological figure is the only thing preventing you from committing homicide that says very little about me, and speaks volumes about you."

We live in a world with enormous amounts of violence,..but why? Again, I'll cite the survey of the New York prison system which found about 75% of NY criminals came from the same seven neighborhoods, which were cesspools. Is this coincidental? Of course not. Or look at the greatest violence:war. Who STARTS wars? Politicians, but they don't fight in them. Thats' for the common rabble, and when enough of us are dead or maimed somebody declares victory and the official history is skewed in their favor and so forth. Then theres' religious violence; the crusades, spanish inquisition, if you want modern examples Al Qaeda, the KKK, abortion clinic bombers, etc. I believe it to be, and there is a very compelling case to be made, that the issue is not human nature, it's monolithic concentrations of power. That they are fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-human. That they devide us into conflicting groups, seperating and turning us on eachother.


Humans don't "disregard" power, we pursue it.

Some more than others. I'd also draw a clear distinction between power over my life and power over everybody else's.


...it only seeks to redistribute that power equally among the members of the society, which is the ultimate form of tyranny: too many people with power but no knowledge of how to use it correctly.

I have problems with this. First of all we live in such a highly managed society. Our political/historical education at least in the public system is woefully inadequate and more propaganda than anything else, our media is controlled by a handful of influential corporations who essentially tell us what the elites want us to think. People are very deliberately and systematically marginalized. This can be no indication of human potential. Also, I think the fundamentals are something everyone can understand. I'm essentially paraphrasing Chomsky, but, like, you don't need to read the Camp David accords in total or whatever to understand the Israeli Palestinian situation, anyone who can understand domestic abuse can understand the important parts. Moreover, I think the people are much farther ahead on some key issues. There are very reliable polls that show the majority of the American public want us out of the Middle East, they want national healthcare, they want better environmental protection and sustainability. then we hear from John kerry, (Who I did vote for admittedly.) that there isn't sufficient "political will." Of course he's right, among the wealthy elites, the people who actually matter. We're just supposed to accept it and be quiet. So in many respects the people are very capable. Moreover, nobody's suggesting we go immediately to a stateless society tomorrow, theres' an evolution.


This situation always gives origin to chaos and injustice. Like in an angry mob seeking "justice", without rules, without leaders, without any formal organization, bloodshed and insanity are the only certain outcome of the lack of law and law enforcement.

Again, this is a questionable assertion at best. Repeating it over and over does not make it so. It's like Larry Craig professing to be a heterosexual, you can't spin it into reality, unless we want to go into metaphysics which is a whole different ball of wax. There have been plenty of solid, real world examples that would indicate the contrary, several examples have been cited, by others, too.