Discussion of Anarchism

[Superhobo]

...You so have not been reading this thread.

 

[Tangled Web]

...You so have not been reading this thread.

I'll do what ever the **** I please.

But, only with in the law.

 

[Edd Extraordinaire]

I'm not really too big on Anarchism. I am more of a truth activist.

 

[Superhobo]

Whatev floats your boat.

 

[Edd Extraordinaire]

I just don't see the point in anarchism. It's like violence violence violence all the time. Total destruction....which isn't really a good thing imo.

 

[Superhobo]

Okay...THAT I cannot stand. That is not the point of Anarchy. Never has it been except for in the common misconceptions in the media and public. Ever.

 

[Tangled Web]

Okay...THAT I cannot stand. That is not the point of Anarchy. Never has it been except for in the common misconceptions in the media and public. Ever.

Well, violence is what would end up happening. And then some guy is going to get a big group together and take over, because everyone will be weak from destruction and violence.

 

[Edd Extraordinaire]

Okay...THAT I cannot stand. That is not the point of Anarchy. Never has it been except for in the common misconceptions in the media and public. Ever.

Then maybe you could elaborate for me?

 

[Superhobo]

Anarchism is the concept of self-governing, and no leaders or social hierarchies.

People who think that ''violence violence violence'' is the point of Anarchism are probably thinking of Anarcho-punk, which is basically little teenage skater freaks who wear the sign as an excuse to be ********s.

 

[Edd Extraordinaire]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. I like the idea of self-governing, but it could never be because humans are greedy, hate-filled beings.

 

[darkdaz]

Every one given ultimate freedom to do what they please to help them live how they want and do whaterver they please. It is a nice idea apart from the fact that there are more people on earth that are selfish and greeds than the ones that are kind and giving. True Anarcky is seen as bad because in a world of true freedom the So called evil would just take and destroy anything they like.

To have a sosiety that could sustain anarky first the basic aspects of human nature would have to be changed. Granted over time you could teach children to be more giving and kind but wouldn't teaching them infinge on their anarckic freedom as well.

Humans are animals you can't escape it and being animals we still hold the instict to creat communities, tribes and societies and we always make our societies with heirarchies this is part of nature. Humanity is not emotionally evoloved enougth for Anarcky.

 

[Superhobo]

That is an idea imposed upon us. But what of the Anarchists like me who would welcome it? Would we too become greedy bastards with a penchant for little fur hats?

 

[darkdaz]

Some people may be ready for Anarky. Or communism, not the ****ed up, not even close to communism the russians and chinese have and have had. i mean proper peaceful people helping each other out equally kind.

But for the most part humanitiy is not ready for it. And you can't force it on people because both need us to be willing to live in this type of society and willing to work at making an anarckic society work.

But you could always start all you would need is a place to start an anarky colony without outside interfearence from other countries.

 

[Superhobo]

I've been toying with the idea of doing that in a few years when I turn eighteen.
Of course, taking all my stuff as well. I'm still an Anarchist, but I needs me my comics.

 

[Outsiderzedge]

That is an idea imposed upon us. But what of the Anarchists like me who would welcome it? Would we too become greedy bastards with a penchant for little fur hats?

No, you'll just be quickly conquered and/or killed by those stronger than you. Your only chance would be to band together, but you will still be no match for those whom do have a ruling party to guide and organize them.

Basically, you'll just be destroyed and/or assimilated, depending on the level of stupidity/cowardice of your particular group.

 

[Superhobo]

Well, aren't you chipper?

 

[Joker]

I'm here to start up a serious discussion of Anarchism, for everyone, the Anarchists (like me and some others), to the fascists (like The Lumberjack and some others. All are welcome. Come in and chat about true freedom.

Anarchy is a contradiction, as soon as you put a name to it. When you put a name to it, it becomes a system of ideals, and seeing as Anarchy is no systems, it becomes impossible to achive.

Now, this depends on whether you're going by the current defenition (no order or systems) or the original defenition (no leaders). I feel that the first option is not only a contradiction, but also impossible to actually carry out. If everyone just did what they want, whenever they want, because there is no system, there would be no road, food, or anything like that. It's a stupid idea. But without leaders I feel is not only possible, but is probably how it should be. The people in charge are always corrputed sooner or later, and most of societys problems come from a leader of some sort. If people in general could just choose a system of rules, and live by them, we would be much better off without leaders. Of course then you get into how to enforce those rules without leaders, and the entire idea still breaks down.

 

[Manic]

Okay, so Anarchy/Anarchism is a form of society that exists without leadership, right?

Here's the rub: In order for Anarchy to work, one would have to assume the human race (on the whole) is capable (by nature) of living together without leadership forming. I don't buy that. Let's be honest; a lot of animals naturally form their own governing bodies. Look at all the groups of animals controlled by an Alpha or Queen figure: ants, bees, wolves, deer, lions, gorillas. Gorillas have DNA 98% identical to that of humans, and they will literally fight one another for leadership of their groups. This is instinct at work. Lots of animals have heirarchy.

And frankly, I don't think humans are capable of anarchic communal living. We're not penguins.

 

[Outsiderzedge]

Anarchy is a contradiction, as soon as you put a name to it. When you put a name to it, it becomes a system of ideals, and seeing as Anarchy is no systems, it becomes impossible to achive.

Now, this depends on whether you're going by the current defenition (no order or systems) or the original defenition (no leaders). I feel that the first option is not only a contradiction, but also impossible to actually carry out. If everyone just did what they want, whenever they want, because there is no system, there would be no road, food, or anything like that. It's a stupid idea. But without leaders I feel is not only possible, but is probably how it should be. The people in charge are always corrputed sooner or later, and most of societys problems come from a leader of some sort. If people in general could just choose a system of rules, and live by them, we would be much better off without leaders. Of course then you get into how to enforce those rules without leaders, and the entire idea still breaks down.

Giving something a name does not make it a system of ideals. That would like black ceasing to be the absence of color simply because we call it black.

 

[Outsiderzedge]

Okay, so Anarchy/Anarchism is a form of society that exists without leadership, right?

Here's the rub: In order for Anarchy to work, one would have to assume the human race (on the whole) is capable (by nature) of living together without leadership forming. I don't buy that. Let's be honest; a lot of animals naturally form their own governing bodies. Look at all the groups of animals controlled by an Alpha or Queen figure: ants, bees, wolves, deer, lions, gorillas. Gorillas have DNA 98% identical to that of humans, and they will literally fight one another for leadership of their groups. This is instinct at work. Lots of animals have heirarchy.

And frankly, I don't think humans are capable of anarchic communal living. We're not penguins.

We're capable of it. It just wouldn't work well.

 

[Joker]

Giving something a name does not make it a system of ideals. That would like black ceasing to be the absence of color simply because we call it black.

Apples and oranges. Black isn't a form of government (or lack therefore of).

 

[Outsiderzedge]

Apples and oranges. Black isn't a form of government (or lack therefore of).

Guess I have to spell it out.

Anarchy is not a system of ideals as it is, by definition, the absense of one.

 

[Joker]

Guess I have to spell it out.

Anarchy is not a system of ideals as it is, by definition, the absense of one.

But right there, it becomes a system of ideals. True, the ideal is "We should have no system" but it's still a system...It's the system of having no system. It just doesn't work out. Much like nihlism...

 

[Outsiderzedge]

But right there, it becomes a system of ideals. True, the ideal is "We should have no system" but it's still a system...It's the system of having no system. It just doesn't work out. Much like nihlism...

Having no system is not a system.

 

[Joker]

I beg to differ