Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

By the way you are talking, it seems you have no idea what anarchism truly is.

living off the land does sound like a good thing... but i can tell you a little something i have been doing to "stick it to the man"... i bought a placer gold claim in a hard to reach area, bought an old willys jeep (because you can hook farm implements and other do-dads to it) and half of the year i go camping panning for gold while the other half me and my dog Col. BearFace go tool around the southern half of the US... i cant build a house on the claim but i can build a non permanent structure... so the only taxes i pay is about 125 dollars a year and whatever taxes a jeweler charges me for the gold i find... and as for gas, my jeep is a diesel engine that i run on vegi-oil i get from chinese food places, not that i really travel all that far... mostly i go to the beach and tune up my jeep and hang out with the col. long story short i live my life with no gods little to no masters and i still dont live by anarchy... i live by the constitution and will live up to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness... and i dont see stupid unjustified taxes standing in my way... if anyone wants to know more about how to have a gold claim and live as off the grid as possible PM me

At 8/18/09 10:02 PM, Kajio wrote:

At 8/18/09 09:54 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 8/18/09 09:46 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 8/18/09 09:45 PM, Christopherr wrote: Haha, I'm going to come live on the land you want to live on.

So am I, we can have orgy!

can I koin becausethats what happens in anarchism no rules so I can do what I want and nothing can stop me.

I have a gun.

Just because the government can't stop it doesn't mean that no one can.

The implicit message being that you believe in the ownership of property. What happens when your gun isn't enough to defend your land rights that wouldn't really exist anyways? A group of guys with more guns will just take it away. What if you get a group of people to defend your land? Well, then other groups will get bigger as well. What happens when the groups grow and grow? You eventually have established governments. Anarchy is such a pipe dream.

I am ok with the government owning me, lets me have to do less shit.

Hey, if you uphold the "anything goes" school of thought but don't want the stigma attached to anarchism, just call yourself a libertarian! Then people will think you're a real American hero!

At 8/18/09 07:51 PM, TightRope wrote: I am an anarchist and twenty years old. Now you may be thinking "this guy needs to grow up", but please, hear me out or don't it's cool.

Hmm I must have the whole idea of "anarchy" wrong, simply speaking you may want to live with a number of people and maybe even start a small village, I have heard about small towns actually having their own currency in which they use amongst themselves n it isn't connected to any other kind.
Anyway if you really are an anarchist, I'm not very sure you would actually want to live in a place that is so for obvious reasons, but sure if you just didn't want to pay taxes you could just go out somewhere n live off the land but I don't think that is very anarchistive and its very likely if you brought a few people with there would be set laws n unspoken rules that people would automaticly follow..... oh isn't that more like "socialism" or something?

So you're saying we shouldn't have the basic society because taxes suck. You DO need to grow up and realise this is how the world works.
If you don't agree with it fine, but you can't escape from it.

Y'know, actually, I would love anarchism. Then I could kill anyone I want, steal with no repercussions, and basically rape and murder my way across the continent! Yay for anarchism! Down with the establishment!

Humans have a natural instinct to form tribes and groups. The power system is just what comes about. Just because you have to help other people doesn't mean that THE GOVERNMENT IS TOTALLY AFTER YOU.

How much would you like your little piece of farmland after it's been burned down to the ground because someone wanted to?

At 8/28/09 02:35 PM, TheStonePilot wrote: Y'know, actually, I would love anarchism. Then I could kill anyone I want, steal with no repercussions, and basically rape and murder my way across the continent!
Humans have a natural instinct to form tribes and groups.

Problem is that if you're actually talking about just you going around killing and raping people, you would be dead whithin hours because people don't let things like that happen even if there was no big government, people have the ability to tell right from wrong and will stop you, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Another thing I really really doubt you are at all serious about what you wrote.

At 8/29/09 05:54 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: even if there was no big government, people have the ability to tell right from wrong and will stop you, and there is nothing you can do about it.

People rape and murder even WITH a government and police force. No way will everyone suddenly become harmless snuggle-bunnies just because the nasty government isn't around anymore

At 8/29/09 11:54 AM, Toadenalin wrote: People rape and murder even WITH a government and police force. No way will everyone suddenly become harmless snuggle-bunnies just because the nasty government isn't around anymore

I know thats what i was saying, but in addition I think the whole law system may be alot harsher as I may have already said, if theres no government to provide moderation then people could be put to death for stealing a candybar or something....(nervous laugh)

At 8/18/09 07:51 PM, TightRope wrote: My goal in life is to move to the middle of nowhere and grow my own food but the only thing stopping me are "land taxes" something you pay for something you "own".

At 8/18/09 09:45 PM, Christopherr wrote: Haha, I'm going to come live on the land you want to live on.

Brilliant! We'll found an 'Atlas Shrugged' sort of 'Galt's gulch' where we produce everything ourselves and are free from the evil government's tax collectors.

This will be fun, very fun.

well science is even conferming that something is going to happen in 2012, maby if you just wait a few years you will get your damn wish. (assuming you survive, and if it turns out its not something wimpy like one asteroid.)

At 8/30/09 03:15 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: well science is even conferming that something is going to happen in 2012,

No it's not you fucking dolt.

you can go to an isolated desert and live in a tent.

Organized Government is a lesser of two evils

At 8/18/09 07:51 PM, TightRope wrote: I am an anarchist and twenty years old. Now you may be thinking "this guy needs to grow up", but please, hear me out or don't it's cool.

I was an anarchist at the age of 14 when it was acceptable to be that fucking stupid and then one day I got a job, learned about taxes and became a republican after learning that taxes are a HORRIBLE fucking thing. I then turned 18 and began voting for the first time ever, then recently I decided to move out on my own and for the first time ever I have seen what taxes do to someone with a 9-5 job living check to check and I realized that taxes are a horrible thing.

Google the news on Somalia. Somalia is about as close to an Anarchy as you are going to get so why do you not just go and live there. I hear the roving death squads love foreigners.

At 8/18/09 08:25 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: anarchism doesn't work and by the way welcome to the real world if you get married you get lower taxes, plus if you join the military.

Lol, I don't think anarchy is supposed to work. That's the point, it's just basically the idea going back to the age of cavemen madness that someone gave a cool name.

If anarchy was applied, we wouldn't exist.

My point here is that the Human species needs a society in order to function, we live in packs since
the start of times. It is simply impossible that a man can live without any laws or leader what so everbecause we, as a species, need it in order to maintain a balance or to change it.

Let's take the most basic form of human regroupment : Family.
In a family every member depends on a dominant member for its survival. This member (usually a parenting figure, either father or mother, differing on the culture) is the founding base of the family, without him the group would either break or disappear. The maintaining of this dominant figure REQUIRES acceptation of certain rules from all the other members. If no one accepts any rule at all, the family unit can not exist, and if no family, no offsprings, no species.

Now this concept applies perfectly to any society, as it is an overgrown family, usually based on geographical or ethnic factors.

No rules, no humans.

That doesn't mean you have to agree to all the rules, but there need to be some.

At 8/28/09 02:35 PM, TheStonePilot wrote: Y'know, actually, I would love anarchism. Then I could kill anyone I want, steal with no repercussions, and basically rape and murder my way across the continent! Yay for anarchism! Down with the establishment!

Anarchy has no hierarchy. It DOES, however, have laws. Quick question: Do you not murder, rape and steal from people because you fear repercussions, or is it more because you don't think it's right? Let's face it: anyone who wants to kill someone will do so under any system. The thing about law in an anarchist society is that it would be approved by the people. If you had to vote on legalizing murder, would you vote yes? Probably not. If you could vote on whether you want all your energy sources to be renewable, you might well vote yes. Yet you're not even being asked directly whether you want one or the other. Why? Because your representatives don't want your opinion once they've got your vote.

Humans have a natural instinct to form tribes and groups. The power system is just what comes about.

You're making the assumption that humanity will never change. If this were the case we probably wouldn't have democracy. Sadly most so called "democracies" don't actually allow their people to get involved directly, you can vote for your representatives, but you can't vote on what should be done. Apparently you aren't fit to make your own decisions, you need some corporate sponsored puppet with a Harvard education to do it for you. Why should you have to pay taxes which you don't approve of? For example, if I were a US-citizen the last thing I'd want to be paying money for is the US-Army.
I'd gladly fill out a "donation-form" where I could spread a certain percentage of my money as I wish to. I'd spend it on public transport, good schools, hospital, alternative energies and so on. Wouldn't taxes where the only thing that is compulsory is to pay a certain amount reflect the public will far better than just voting for representatives? Politicians should have a role as unpayed "guides" they should be people doing it as a hobby giving suggestions not deciding for us.

Just because you have to help other people doesn't mean that THE GOVERNMENT IS TOTALLY AFTER YOU.

Haha, because agent orange in Vietnam, dying for oil and bombing civilians is really helping other people. If your taxes were going where you want them to you'd get to help other people, if you wished to do so. About 50% of the US-budget is spent on the army, and I think a lot of that money could be used for better purposes elsewhere.

How much would you like your little piece of farmland after it's been burned down to the ground because someone wanted to?

Yet again, laws would exist. And I'm pretty sure you wouldn't vote "yes" on legalizing "random fire attacks". You might however pay some of your taxes on an insurance that insures those who pay for it.

At 9/11/09 10:30 AM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote: Why?

Do you even have any idea of how many things people would have to vote on on a daily basis if they wanted to truly take part in politics and replace politicians?
You'd have to read hundreds of pages of law documents each week just to keep up to date on everything that's going on.

Each person would need to do MORE WORK than an average politician does. You'd have to vote as mayor, governor, senator, president, congressman.. what the shit? It would be endless.

Wouldn't taxes where the only thing that is compulsory is to pay a certain amount reflect the public will far better than just voting for representatives?

People are not qualified to make these kinds of decision.
Neither of us knows how much money you need to build a road or where roads are needed. You can't just expect people to randomly figure out that they need to give 20 bucks for transport this year or else the potholes won't be fixed.

Anyway none of this has anything to do with anarchy.
You're just complaining about things the government does. Join the club.

Giving people more voting power doesn't suddenly turn a democracy into anarchy.

At 9/11/09 11:36 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/11/09 10:30 AM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote: Why?

Do you even have any idea of how many things people would have to vote on on a daily basis if they wanted to truly take part in politics and replace politicians?
You'd have to read hundreds of pages of law documents each week just to keep up to date on everything that's going on.

Of course people wouldn't always vote on everything, i.e. they wouldn't have to know everything that's going on. But they would have the right to, i.e. they get sent a monthly letter or e-mail and vote on what they want to, and abstain on things they don't know or care about. For example, do you really have strong feelings on whether the local gym hall should be renovated or not? Probably not --->abstain. Do you have strong feelings about legalizing pot? Maybe ---> vote. Of course this creates a certain amount of work, but at least some things like counting the votes can be done electronically these days (maybe technology has opened the door to this kind of society). The fact that voting would be left to those who want to vote on certain matters, would also hopefully guarantee educated voting.

Wouldn't taxes where the only thing that is compulsory is to pay a certain amount reflect the public will far better than just voting for representatives?

People are not qualified to make these kinds of decision.
Neither of us knows how much money you need to build a road or where roads are needed. You can't just expect people to randomly figure out that they need to give 20 bucks for transport this year or else the potholes won't be fixed.

Well, this is where the politicians as "guides" come in. I think most people would realize that some shit has to be taken care of, like the roads you mentioned. And I think it's fair to say that, if the politicians recommended the right amounts (already taking things like some people not paying for them into account.), most people would gladly pay that amount. However, I bet a lot of people don't think a massive army is necessary, so they wouldn't pay. Despite what some elitist people may think, the vast majority of people aren't stupid enough to completely neglect important things such as: public transport, hospitals, schools and so on. Also I would guess that a few people would even voluntarily pay more taxes if they could choose what for. I don't think that could be said of today's system. This would lead to good institutions being strengthened and unnecessary ones being weakened.

Anyway none of this has anything to do with anarchy.
You're just complaining about things the government does. Join the club.

Giving people more voting power doesn't suddenly turn a democracy into anarchy.

Actually by giving politicians less power you are getting rid of their hierarchical higher standing, thus at least making a step towards an anarchy. Also let's not forget that an anarchy does contain direct democracy (imo the only real democracy), so you can't just act like democracy and anarchy are completely different.