Anarchism

[BloodRaven666]

I have posted to say im sorry about my last post about our presidents war on iraq, and to start a new subject.

Anarchism is the political theory that no government is nessary. I am just asking that what is the goal of the common anarchist. And id like to ask what is anarchism really?

[BloodRaven666]

If someone could reccomend a book or website to teach me about anarchism, that would be most helpful.

[NEMESiSZ]

Anyone with "666" in their name is a political master, I would assume, and should know these things.

[BloodRaven666]

no i choose 666 to add on to my name mainly beacause it is easy to rember, it is quite simple for anyone in the world to use 666 as a password or otherwise. And how would i be considered being a "political master" by using the name 666, it could just mean im using the number for my own personal reasons. Also if you think i am a "political master" than you must be a "political god" to put a specific idea behind someones political beliefs.I would like to learn more, beacause,
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." --Socrates

[karasz]

he's referring to how both u and ps2 lover 666 have 666 in ur name...

hysterical...

[FUNKbrs]

lets get down to brass tacks here.

I think the average anarchist sees that the current governmental systems are too complex for the average person to understand, and therfore craves a simpler system where understanding the world is a simple as understand the average human being. A successful anarchy depends on a strong cultural heritage, and a general agreement to common values universally.

However, the common anarchist also realizes that these values ARE IN FACT LAWS. therefore the use of these values in government is semiredundant. this means that governments are only the second line of defense against injustice, the first being morals. True anarchists are generally strongly moral people, although those morals might not be the same morals non anarchists would agree to.

the need for government arises when cultures of different morals merge and collide. When these basic cultural morals are brought into question, chaos ensues. there fore the average anarchist only wants more freedom from complex and redundant laws, and not a pure anarchy.

[karasz]

At 4/23/03 01:46 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: I think the average anarchist sees that the current governmental systems are too complex for the average person to understand, and therfore craves a simpler system where understanding the world is a simple as understand the average human being.

so anarchists are about the dumbening down of politics?

A successful anarchy depends on a strong cultural heritage, and a general agreement to common values universally.

yeah that has a chance to ever happen

However, the common anarchist also realizes that these values ARE IN FACT LAWS.

anarchists using laws... im pretty sure they would be libertarians... seriously check out their platform, they all about the govt not doing much more than defending the borders...

therefore the use of these values in government is semiredundant. this means that governments are only the second line of defense against injustice, the first being morals.

well if we start living in a 'morals-rule' world, im killing a lot of people...

True anarchists are generally strongly moral people, although those morals might not be the same morals non anarchists would agree to.

morals is where the things get tricky...

the need for government arises when cultures of different morals merge and collide.

welcome to america

When these basic cultural morals are brought into question, chaos ensues. there fore the average anarchist only wants more freedom from complex and redundant laws, and not a pure anarchy.

oh... so basically this whole post thingy im doing is pointless and just a waste of time in hopes that i get tired and go to sleep... well thanks alot FUNKbrs...

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/22/03 09:51 PM, BloodRaven666 wrote: I have posted to say im sorry about my last post about our presidents war on iraq, and to start a new subject.

Anarchism is the political theory that no government is nessary. I am just asking that what is the goal of the common anarchist. And id like to ask what is anarchism really?

Anarchim is believeing that no government is necesary.

Government is definately necessary, someone needs to keep some kind of order. If all the Governments of the world were disposed tomorrow. I give the world 48 hours left.

The goal of the common Anarchist is to depose government. What they actually do though, id do stupid things like putting glue in bank doors locks and stuff. They egg government buildings and cause minor trouble.

If you want to learn about anarchy, do not look at the Anarchists Cookbook. It is not any kind of handbook, it just tells you how to make pipe bombs and grow Cannabis.

[JudgeDredd]

At 4/23/03 07:17 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Anarchists Cookbook.

** snickers **

<homer voice> oh. i thought that was ANTI-CHRISTS COOKBOOK - doh!

** mysterious van pulls up outside **

..anarchists believe that governments become corrupt and evil entities which don't ultimately benefit society (who started all the wars in the 20th century?)

..anarchists believe that no government is better than opressive government.
.

[Nirvana13666]

http://www.anarchy.org

Anarchism is a political theory opposed to all forms of government. Anarchists believe that the highest attainment of humanity is the freedom of the individual to express himself, unhindered by any form of repression or control from without. The belief that all governments rest on violence to control their subjects.

[Nirvana13666]

At 4/23/03 01:46 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: lets get down to brass tacks here.

I think the average anarchist sees that the current governmental systems are too complex for the average person to understand, and therfore craves a simpler system where understanding the world is a simple as understand the average human being.

I think Anarchists believe that the people that are regulated by the government should have the control. People aren’t dumb but they can be manipulated and that is what goes on because people are gullible enough to believe that these corporate sharks care about them more then their money.

the need for government arises when cultures of different morals merge and collide. When these basic cultural morals are brought into question, chaos ensues. there fore the average anarchist only wants more freedom from complex and redundant laws, and not a pure anarchy.

A government should care about it people and want unconditional peace between all cultures. Existing government systems around the world are corrupt and people are sick of it. People want the truth and Anarchists realize that first the chaos must come before there can be any order. They want to give governing duties to the people not these jerks that couldn't care less about any of us.

[TheShrike]

I believe I posted this elsewhere...

A brief summary of anarchy & it's followers

Hilarity ensues!

[Nirvana13666]

anarchists believe that no government is better than opressive government.

Anarchists reject authoritarian forms of organisation and instead support associations based on free agreement

[FUNKbrs]

At 4/23/03 02:22 AM, karasz wrote: oh... so basically this whole post thingy im doing is pointless and just a waste of time in hopes that i get tired and go to sleep... well thanks alot FUNKbrs...

I was trying to explain something that doesnt work from the perspective of someone who believes in it. While I do believe we need fewer laws and of a less complex nature .a pure anarchy does not work. But some anarchist concepts DO work, especially the concept of free trade.
The natural laws of supply and demand make the competition of anarchy beneficial to product consumers. The only way a legalist view of trade can control prices is to cap them with a law. When economics change the prices should reflect this, but laws are rigid, and may take months to change. In a free trade (anarchistic) model, laws do not determine a market and competition does, this way we cut out many taxes and levels of beauracracy, and gain a more efficient system (for FREE!).

lets not write off anarchy, it does make some points.

[Nirvana13666]

Anarchim is believeing that no government is necesary.

Government is definately necessary, someone needs to keep some kind of order. If all the Governments of the world were disposed tomorrow. I give the world 48 hours left.

Anarchists do not believe that everyone should be able to "do whatever they like," because some actions invariably involve the denial of the liberty of others.

Anarchists do not support the "freedom" to rape, to exploit, or to coerce others. They do not tolerate authority. On the contrary, since authority is a threat to liberty, equality, and solidarity (not to mention human dignity), anarchists recognise the need to resist and overthrow it
The goal of the common Anarchist is to depose government. What they actually do though, is do stupid things like putting glue in bank doors locks and stuff. They egg government buildings and cause minor trouble.
The exercise of authority is not freedom. No one has a "right" to rule others. As Malatesta points out, anarchism supports "freedom for everybody. . .with the only limit of the equal freedom for others; which does not mean. . . that we recognise, and wish to respect, the 'freedom' to exploit, to oppress, to command, which is oppression and certainly not freedom." [Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 53]

If you want to learn about anarchy, do not look at the Anarchists Cookbook. It is not any kind of handbook, it just tells you how to make pipe bombs and grow Cannabis.
Freedom cannot be created by the actions of an elite few destroying rulers on behalf of the majority.The anarchist revolution is about destroying structures, not people.The state and media insist on referring to terrorists who are not anarchists as anarchists

[Jonas]

At 4/23/03 09:19 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote: anarchists believe that no government is better than opressive government.

Anarchists reject authoritarian forms of organisation and instead support associations based on free agreement

Thank you for stating an already stated point.
Anarchy is not an impossible feat, but if imployed, it only lasts until you're shot dead

[TheShrike]

For anyone who did not follow my link...

[PreacherJ]

Governments exist to protect the weak. Anarchism has it's heart in the right place, but the idea of a government-less world is ri-god-damn-diculous. There's way too much evil in the world to live without the advent of laws. Anarchy would work, if we all had the ability to coexist peacefully, and in harmony without expending our resources.

This is NEVER going to happen in America. Ever. America is the land of "Grab all you can and fuck the other guy." Removal of those laws protecting the other guy would simply be a ludicrous, asinine descent into an orgy of destruction. Look at what happens in a riot.

If the government were to come up with some sort of mind control, however, and then just dissolve themselves away into the night, thus giving up all of the power, I suppose Anarchy could work. If that happens, though, I'll need to buy a new pair of hockey skates because Hell has fucking frozen over.

Bottom Line Facts:

-The government exists, at it's heart, to provide order to a social structure, and in doing so, provides protection for weaker individuals at the cost of personal liberty.
-Individuals granted power by the government will never want to give that power up.
-Anarchy, in the truest sense of the word, could never be a viable governmental choice, because it's human nature to exceed their needs, and destroy anything preventing that, including other humans.

Word.

[TheShrike]

I actually prefer ri-fucking-diculous when it comes to Anarchy

[PreacherJ]

I guess it's all a matter of preference, then. I like "goddamn" because of the preacher reference, though. :)

[FUNKbrs]

At 4/23/03 02:30 PM, PreacherJ wrote: -The government exists, at it's heart, to provide order to a social structure, and in doing so, provides protection for weaker individuals at the cost of personal liberty.
-Individuals granted power by the government will never want to give that power up.
-Anarchy, in the truest sense of the word, could never be a viable governmental choice, because it's human nature to exceed their needs, and destroy anything preventing that, including other humans.

Word.

damn moderates! I tried three different ways to rip this argumnent apart, but you moderated it too much to allow me to call you an extremist or an idiot. Quit being right all the damn time, youre ruining my day.

word, G

[PreacherJ]

Sorry?

:D

[FUNKbrs]

At 4/23/03 04:18 PM, PreacherJ wrote: Sorry?

D

fuhgetabowdit

you da man, 's all 'm sayin

[PreacherJ]

Oh. Thanks. :)

[TheShrike]

At 4/23/03 03:33 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: damn moderates! I tried three different ways to rip this argumnent apart, but you moderated it too much to allow me to call you an extremist or an idiot. Quit being right all the damn time, youre ruining my day.

But if you call him an extremeist idiot, you put him up there with Hitler. And since Hitler is a monster, you'd be calling him a monster, and since you'd be taking away his humanity, you'd also be a good-fer-nuthin monster.

Preacher is da man, oh yes...

[PreacherJ]

At 4/23/03 04:26 PM, TheShrike wrote:
But if you call him an extremeist idiot, you put him up there with Hitler. And since Hitler is a monster, you'd be calling him a monster, and since you'd be taking away his humanity, you'd also be a good-fer-nuthin monster.

Preacher is da man, oh yes...

Awww shucks. *Kicks the dirt clod on ground*

Yer just sayin' that... *Blushes*

[JMHX]

We all.....like PreacherJ. Long as he keeps his hands off the altar boys.

[PreacherJ]

What about the nuns? Do I get to touch them?

[TheShrike]

In the true spirit of anarchy, I shall help move this thread further off-topic so nothing worthwhile can come of it.

So~
A Preacher(J) takes his car to the mechanic.
He asks, "Good sir, what has gone wrong with my car?"
The mechanic replies, "Well, it was simple, the nut on your oil pan was loose. I fixed it up, free of charge. It's tighter than a nun's cunt now."
The Preacher(J) replies, "Better give it another turn"

[FUNKbrs]

At 4/23/03 04:26 PM, TheShrike wrote: But if you call him an extremeist idiot, you put him up there with Hitler. And since Hitler is a monster, you'd be calling him a monster, and since you'd be taking away his humanity, you'd also be a good-fer-nuthin monster.

damnit, you missed the point of that argument entirely. there are lots of extremist idiots (although I said extremist OR idiot) What I said was that you cant replace an archetype for evil (satan, the bogeyman etc) with a persons name, just because they share similarities. I cannot say, "mommie, I's scared, theres a skinhead under my bed!" Because it shows a basic lack of understanding of what a skinhead is. Hitler, Stalin, Ben Laden, these are men, and not goblins. Anti goblin warfare will not work on them. They must be fought like men, because that is what they are. When you dehumanize men like these, you lower your defenses to their human tactics (communist hippies have a lot of good things to say about Stalin and Lenin) and become similar to them (you dont become a monster, because you can only ever be a person, until you are dead)

P J is still da man, tho yo.