RE: Anarchy

RE: Anarchy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

subfever -> RE: Anarchy (4/25/2007 10:14:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Any Anarchists on the board? I'm not quite there yet, but I'm for reducing government by about 90% over the next 20-30 years.

NorthernGent -> RE: Anarchy (4/25/2007 11:06:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Any Anarchists on the board? Only if I get a REALLY good job in the "Transitional Government." (I thought I might be at one point until I did some reading and discovered the very 'TG' I joke about above.) Sounds more like Marxism to me, Rich. At its core, Anarchy is a concept which advocates no authority of any description, on the basis that it degrades human existence. There isn't a transitional government. There are many strands of Anarchism, but as far as I'm aware, this basic concept is common to them all.

NorthernGent -> RE: Anarchy (4/25/2007 11:33:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Casie Anarchy is great in theory. But the fact of that matter is as humans it is completely impossible without complete chaos. And some ass hole would always be using force to force others to do what he wanted for self gradification. I've always believed most people are slaves to the system and they don't realise it. As an example, a government sends an army to kill people in a far off land, and many of the people at home either excuse or support it. There's no justification for organised violence on that scale, but people will attempt to justify what is basically the slaughter of people. Yet, most people see themselves as hard working, reasonable people and no one would want to be considered a murderer. Ever pondered why this is allowed to happen? and why people who support murder view themselves as the salt of the earth? - the contradiction is staring people in the face, yet they can't see it. Brainwashing and slavery to the system. Day in, day out, people are fed messages from all sorts of media - some subliminal, some obvious - all rendering people predisposed to support mass murder and justify it in their own minds. The point to this is that people are conditioned and manipulated to support murder and subjugation. Anarchy makes sense to me in this respect. If you were to take away the establishment and their media propaganda machine which promotes and excuses the idea of nations competing with each other for resources, then cooperation may be possible. It depends on your view of the essence of human spirit - a battle for resources, or an innate need for cooperation and co-existence. The battle for resources idea is continuously promoted by those who have a vested interest in doing so. Their view of the world is suspect. quote: ORIGINAL: Casie Violent crime would sky rocket no one would go to jobs With in a year or two we would all starve and there would be no humans left. Most of us aren't savy enough to live off the land, or live without the things we are accostume to like electrity, oil, a super market ext. We would all die and fast. Well yeah, the powers that be consistently feed us the line that we couldn't live in a mutually co-operative society without authority, but they would do because they stand to lose their position of authority if we ever tried to live in such a manner. As far as I'm aware, Anarchy is nothing to do with living without electricity etc. It includes developing human knowledge for mutually beneficial purposes, in contrast to using technological development to murder the citizens of other countries.

NorthernGent -> RE: Anarchy (4/25/2007 11:56:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gypsygrl I've been kind of sort of maybe moving in that direction for a while now. I just haven't had time/focus to look at the different varieties of anarchism and really think it through. I got totally disgusted with liberalism when everyone jumped on "the third way" band wagon and socialism takes up too many evenings (appologies to Oscar Wilde). So lately I've been playing around with populism, left- libertarianism and anarchism. I like where Socialists are trying to get to - ultimately the same place as Anarchists, but I think Socialism is inherently flawed. If the working class take over the government they are no longer the working class, they become the establishment and have violence and propaganda at their disposal (and they will use it), so rule by the masses seems an impossibility. Also, Socialism can not be achieved without a lot of bloodshed, there is nothing voluntary about Socialism and I think this is a very flawed concept that contradicts the human spirit. In terms of Anarchism, I completely agree with the notion that violence is rarely justified by the end result. If you're going to use violence as a tool of diplomacy, then a heavy burden of proof falls on those claiming it to be a legitimate tool of authority. I am yet to see the burden of proof satisfied on this message board or anywhere else. I've been curious about Anarchism for a while now, and the more I read the more it makes perfect sense to me. Much of it I have always agreed with - the notions of co-existence, mutual aid, consensus rather than rule, non-violent, and most of all - freedom and self-possession of mind and body. The third way :-)

seeksfemslave -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 12:38:27 AM)
Are not Anarchy and cooperation mutually exclusive ? Except maybe when looking through the distorting curtain of alcohol or other "substance" consumption.. Naive idealists seem to have no trouble in not recognising the contradiction. That is one reason why they do so much damage when they get any political influence.

Satyr6406 -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 12:40:52 AM)
I thought we werre an anarcho-syndicalist commune, we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week ... Peace and comfort, Michael

seeksfemslave -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 12:59:40 AM)
If freedom and mutual cooperation were really the natural way for human beings then surely somewhere in the world at some point in time such a society would have developed. NO ? Constructs of underemployed intellectuals rarely amount to much. Take Esperanto or attempts to find a formula to find the highest prime number What do we see humans do....bullying at school,. neighbours in conflict or at least indifferent, personal abuse simply for holding contrary opinions, no lack of that on CM, through to divisive policies, cunningly disguised, at the national level. Social groups always develop hierarchically and so it is with political groups. NO? In fact I would say that the <National Interest> being not capabale of definition or the <public view> being so diverse explains why there is so much natural conflict in and between different social groups. "Naives" appear to believe that if they get the opportunity to explain their views all will be well because everyone will agree. Well they are wrong because were it so it would have happened many many years ago !

UtopianRanger -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 1:15:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Any Anarchists on the board? I wouldn't by any stretch consider myself an Anarchist, but I do like / love a certain level of anarchy to surround me. For instance: I wouldn't want to know ahead of time that if I was going to paddle a flooded class5 river, that I'd always be able to do so without any potential mishaps. The potential for chaos and one to experience extreme misfortune is what makes some of us feel free and totally alive. - R

petdave -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 6:05:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Are not Anarchy and cooperation mutually exclusive ? They are not. Why could there not be cooperation under anarchy? Anarchy doesn't mean that there is no trust, or that there is a law against cooperative organizations, or even forming a private organization with a leadership structure. It involves the lack of a centralized, authoritative power. If you want to establish a chess club, join an agrarian co-operative, or woo to your household a harem of women who pledge to obey your every command, anarchy leaves you free to do so. It just means that you must choose your allegiances wisely, because if they move your rook while you're in the bathroom, embezzle corn for their still, or cut off your willy in a fit of jealous rage, there is no all-encompassing entity to turn to and demand justice. ...dave

Sinergy -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 6:19:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 I thought we werre an anarcho-syndicalist commune, we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week ... How do we know he is king? He ain't got shit all over him. Sinergy

seeksfemslave -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 6:43:16 AM)
Absence of any form of political authority. Political disorder and confusion. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. Three definitions of Anarchy from dictionary.com. Theoreticians might assume an ideal society may arise under def. 1 If you define Anarchy as defs 1 or 3 then cooperation and social stability may arise quite naturally. Realists know that def 2 would occur along with a lack of cooperation and increases in social conflict. Thus Anarchy and co operation would be mutually exclusive if ever it was put into practice. NO ? You are quite safe reading about and idealising it tho' ! Just dont try it thats all lol

Sinergy -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 6:57:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Thus Anarchy and co operation would be mutually exclusive if ever it was put into practice. NO ? You are quite safe reading about and idealising it tho' ! Just dont try it thats all lol Here is an interesting article which describes the relevant economic and social issues surrounding Anarchy. http://www.peterleeson.com/Efficient_Anarchy.pdf What I learned in Utopian Reality is that Predatory approaches tends to trump Social Contract approaches, but it has been a long time since I read those source materials. Sinergy

Satyr6406 -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 9:56:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 I thought we werre an anarcho-syndicalist commune, we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week ... How do we know he is king? He ain't got shit all over him. Sinergy (Now, look, you. I'm doing this from memory) No, the lady of the lake, her arm clad in the purest of shimmering samite held Excalibur aloft;signifying that I ... yada, yada, yada. That's how we know that I'm a king! Peace and comfort, Michael

seeksfemslave -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 10:41:54 AM)
Synergy: I had a read of the link you provided. The main point of the paper is to discuss whether Anarchical societies can be more efficient than those that are organised and governed. This is equivalent to asking is a perpetual motion machine more efficient than a Diesel engined car. The answer may well be yes discounting the fact that neither PP machines nor Anarchical societies are capable of existing. Later in the article the Nuer society in the Sudan is offered as an example of an Anarchical society. So I found the following quote: The Nuer, being very well organised, were often able to conduct cattle raids against the Dinka, a tribe larger in population. Oh dear, Oh dear Oh dear, Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear he he he he he he he Blame MsJO, she's the one always going on about "sauces" he he he he he he he

LadyEllen -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 10:58:47 AM)
right now on BBC, we have a program called Castaway, where 15 or so people have been dumped on an island and left to sort things out for themselves. Its reality TV, a genre whose shelf life was over about a week after the first Big Brother, but this particular production lacking the sort of intervention and control of BB is providing an interesting example of what could be an anarchical society. There is no central authority and there is there a bunch of people who had no acquaintance with one another prior to the programme. For a change, the people dont seem to represent various borderline personality disorders either - they seem to be pretty much run of the mill types. Whilst there is a common purpose in surviving on the island, the people concerned have very different ideas about how to do that, and with no one having authority to impose order, a natural order has arisen which functions to allow the whole to achieve their objective. The natural order that has arisen consists so far of two of the men leaving the group and moving out to their own accomodation, whilst meanwhile several allegiance groups have formed within the whole, and one man in particular has shown himself ready to take charge whenever possible. In even such a contrived microcosm then, we see that natural human behaviour is moving towards there being a king, and party affiliations and a struggle towards establishing order - which currently consists of "the king" and the various allegiance groups, each trying to get their own way. Without the presence of the BBC cameras, I'm sure we'd soon find the Castaway island being the setting for a Lord Of The Flies scenario - a book which surely tells us that whatever ideals we might aspire to, humans are nasty, cunning pieces of work and anarchy as a system would founder on that fact alone. E

seeksfemslave -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 2:02:51 PM)
Where's NG when you want 'im. lol

FirmhandKY -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 2:55:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent In terms of Anarchism, I completely agree with the notion that violence is rarely justified by the end result. If you're going to use violence as a tool of diplomacy, then a heavy burden of proof falls on those claiming it to be a legitimate tool of authority. I am yet to see the burden of proof satisfied on this message board or anywhere else. And you never will, because - quite simply - you will reject any argument, logic or proof counter to what you wish to believe. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I've been curious about Anarchism for a while now, and the more I read the more it makes perfect sense to me. Much of it I have always agreed with - the notions of co-existence, mutual aid, consensus rather than rule, non-violent, and most of all - freedom and self-possession of mind and body. The third way :-) Nice thoughts. Not grounded in reality, but nice nonetheless. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I like where Socialists are trying to get to - ultimately the same place as Anarchists, but I think Socialism is inherently flawed. If the working class take over the government they are no longer the working class, they become the establishment and have violence and propaganda at their disposal (and they will use it), so rule by the masses seems an impossibility. Also, Socialism can not be achieved without a lot of bloodshed, there is nothing voluntary about Socialism and I think this is a very flawed concept that contradicts the human spirit. Ok, you are far enough along to understand that Socialism is inherently flawed. You seem to understand that Anarchism is flawed in the same way as well ... why do they consider them both flawed? What is the "thing" that makes them unworkable? Once you identify that "thing", then tell me ... what system current addresses it, no matter how imperfectly? FirmKY

Casie -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 3:20:37 PM)
quote: As far as I'm aware, Anarchy is nothing to do with living without electricity etc. I did not mean that anarchy it's self is against electricity ext. but most of us are lazy on some scale and would stop going to work, because we could just steal what we needed. We would slowly regress to a tribal society which I would actually enjoy. But the fact of the matter is most human expessially here in the US are not savy enough to survive without the things we are accustom to. People would still fight over the most furtile land, and for power, it is just our nature as humans. It would be a beautiful thing if we could all coexisit each doing there part to make a society run effectivly but it's just something that is not ever gonna happen. and if we were gonna go anarchy here in the us it wouldn't last long because some opther country would swoop in and take over. Anarchy is just not practical.

Sinergy -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 7:47:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Satyr6406 I thought we werre an anarcho-syndicalist commune, we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week ... How do we know he is king? He ain't got shit all over him. Sinergy (Now, look, you. I'm doing this from memory) No, the lady of the lake, her arm clad in the purest of shimmering samite held Excalibur aloft;signifying that I ... yada, yada, yada. That's how we know that I'm a king! Peace and comfort, Michael "Strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives directly from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Now if I went around saying I was emperor because some moistened bink lobbed a scimitar at me, they would put me away." Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Anarchy (4/26/2007 7:50:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Synergy: I had a read of the link you provided. The main point of the paper is to discuss whether Anarchical societies can be more efficient than those that are organised and governed. This is equivalent to asking is a perpetual motion machine more efficient than a Diesel engined car. The answer may well be yes discounting the fact that neither PP machines nor Anarchical societies are capable of existing. Later in the article the Nuer society in the Sudan is offered as an example of an Anarchical society. So I found the following quote: The Nuer, being very well organised, were often able to conduct cattle raids against the Dinka, a tribe larger in population. Oh dear, Oh dear Oh dear, Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear he he he he he he he Blame MsJO, she's the one always going on about "sauces" he he he he he he he Yeah, I read it too. My bad. I thought this was a thread on Anarchy. The article did make the point that there are anarchies in the world today, but that as societies become more developed they end up not lasting. I made the point about the two basic methodologies they discussed. I am not sure where sauces were discussed, but I do apologize if I posted something that confused you. Sinergy

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125