Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/14/03 11:04 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote: Why the hell cant you idiots understand this?
JUST BECAUSE YOUR FAVORITE PUNK BAND HAS AN ANARCHY SIGN ON THEIR ALBUM COVERS DOES NOT MEAN IT IS A VIABLE FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

In your opinion.

At 5/14/03 10:12 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote: It is thought that a society without a State would have no defense from attack by foreign states well then it must be said that the current State uses us as to defend our rulers, who, if the truth be untangled, are our real enemies. A classic anarchist answer is to arm the people. An armed population would be difficult to control just as anarchist militias in Spain very nearly won the civil war despite shortages of weapons, treachery by the Communists and intervention by Germany and Italy.

An anarchiest society would be defenseless. First of all, who would manufacture the millions of firearms needed for a war? Even if you gave everyone in the so called "nation" a gun, why would they fight for a nation that was made up of many independant little republics (I suppose); they wouldn't be loyal to the other little republics. Then comes the question: who would lead the army? If the people of the anarchy picked someone to lead the army, wouldn't he take power? Most definately. It's human nature, and I bet there isn't one person who would refuse a huge gain in power like that. And believe me, if you think that an anarchy government could win a war without a leader, you would be way off. The people would be unorganized and wouldn't know what the fuck they'd be doing. The only reason that the Spanish guerillas got that far in their civil war was because they were fighting the Spanish republic, which was shitty and not up to date technologicly and economicly. When the facists came in and aided with their superior wealth and technology, the government fell; imagine that. Nowadays, many governments are well equipped with up to date technology. In an anarchist state, there would be no new weapon production (the citizens wouldn't be doing research), and the state would get whomped by another surrounding nation.

I can only think of two anarchist states that were fought in campaigns and were successful; a leader arose to power in both of these occasions, of course. Genghis Kahn of Mongolia ralied the fighting Mongolian tribes in his conquest and Holy Roman Emperor Fredrick I ralied the quarreling German states in his campaign.

I remember reading in your previous response that you said something about people not needing any law or police; that is a bad plan. You should know by now that many people in society are just fuckin losers. They'd steal every damn thing they needed; hell, I'd probably steal a lot of crap too. Ultimately, I don't believe that an anarchy could work for any extended period of time and someone or a group would definately gain power if the oppertunity arose.

The mongolian tribes were not in an anarchist state. Each individual tribe had it's own set of mores and laws.

Real quick, for everybody's benefit, the definition of the word "government."

1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
5. A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
6. Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.

"The television, press and films all support obedience. When anarchy is mentioned it is presented as senseless damage. They have to believe that authority and obedience are necessary in order to validate their own crimes."

Could you explain this further? I wasn't sure if you meant that the media commits these crimes, or the government behind them?

"Anarchists have differing ideas on precisely how society should to be organized. They all agree that the State must be replaced by a society without classes and without force."

Doesn't this seem to be a bit of a paradox following the sentence in which you mentioned "anarchy (which means simply no government)."?

If there was an organization of society, isn't that a form of governmental involvement? Who would organize it? What would cause me to follow it?

Anarchists seek to replace the state, not with chaos, but with the natural, spontaneous forms of organization that emerged wherever mutual aid and common interests through coordination and self-government became necessary.

Could you further elaborate on this non-governmental form of organization? How are decisions made? Who determines what a common interest is? Are you referring to everybody becoming self-sufficient? How are they coordinated without someone telling someone else to do?

Leaders claim to be protecting us from each other, they’re actually more interested in protecting themselves and their property from us.

This is entirely a matter of opinion, really, even if you quoted it from a thousand prominent Anarchists.

Crimes of rage are unavoidable by police or anyone else however, in a less wearisome society such crimes would be uncommon.

Yeah, I'd think so, but once again, do you have any evidence to back this up? I think you'll be hard pressed to find a government that reverted to anarchy and committed less of these atrocities, and, the entire concept of "a less wearisome society" is relative, to a point.

Even so, the thought that such happy shiny bonding together in an anarchistic society dedicated to uniting against common goals creating "a less wearisome society" is unfounded (it hasn't happened before in our modern civilization yet), and, since we have no knowledge of this fictitious society, we haven't a clue as to how people will react to different situations in such a society. Maybe, since there's less "emotional strain" on the populace, somebody'll get bored, and let me tell you, there's nothing worse than a bored serial killer...

If we become members of our local community, own and share all the resources it would become meaningless to steal and an important motive for crime would be eradicated.

This is preposterous. If that were true, then multimillion dollar atheletes wouldn't bitch and complain and strike when thier contracts are $28 million instead of $30 million. There's a natural instinct of greed in all animals (a dog will get fat if you keep feeding it, for example), and humans are the worst of the lot. There isn't a species on Earth that goes to the lengths the human race does to "grab all you can and fuck the other guy."

Just because there's enough for everybody doesn't mean I don't still want more than you. Jealousy/Greed makes me unhappy. Unhappiness = dissent. Dissent + Time = Uprising. Uprising + Pseudo-Anarchy = Riots/Revolutions and a new form of government.

To Be Continued~

Local people aware of each others' situation would be able to put into operation more appropriate resolutions.

Not to be a dick, but why would I help you? What makes me want to? If I don't need your help, and I don't possess your moral structure (is nitro watching?), what's to stop me (if there's truly no government) from just sitting on my ass all day, not working to improve the community, and then stealing from you when you aren't looking, thus benefitting from your labor, and exploiting the poor governmental system?

Prisons fail to improve or reform, how is locking people up with other anti-socials, so to speak, supposed to develop responsibility and reasonable behavior?

Prisons do dissuade people from braking the law. Why don't I steal more often? Because I don't want to go to jail. Plus, the fact that Johnny Lawbreaker is behind bars stops him (at least temporarily) from doing all those mean things to me. There's a shitload of facts on both sides of the effect prisons have on crime here. As for turning them into more responsible, productive members of socierty, aside from the deterrent prisons have, several prisons do offer job training and rehabilitation programs.

As for the school system, it is foolish to think that education simply consists of spending eleven years or so of our lives in schools especially isolated from the real world. It would be much healthier for our education to be integrated with the everyday work and life of society. In this way everyone's particular skills would be properly recognized by society and used for the education of others. Education should be available throughout our lives, rather than being illogically confined to that part of our lives spent in schools. We are all potential learners and teachers, passing on and acquiring skills and understanding as we go through life.

I agree with this, partially. I just fail to see how you could do this, exactly. You should further explain the "system" these "Anarchists" wish to impose.

People who refuse to work undergo social pressure and in drastic cases they could be expelled from the community. Imagine being compelled to face a meeting of the whole community you live in and publicly discuss a problem. People need to work and we all have a definite need for creative activity.

If there were consequences for my inactiveness, then there'd be laws. If there were laws. there'd be a government to enforce them. If I had to go and feel pressured to work by a town meeting, then that isn't anarchy. It's more of a true democracy, isn't it? Especially if there is consequences (Such as being expelled from a community). There'd be social pressure, sure, but since there is no law, there is nothing that the community could do to MAKE me work. If they run me out of town, then that's the government at work, enforcing laws. "Work or get out of town."

Observe the amount of people who spend their time working on cars, in gardening, making clothes, creating music. They are usually thought of as hobbies rather than work, since we're brought up to think of work as a torment to be endured and it does not mean that we are naturally lazy, it means that we dislike being treated as machines, duty-bound to do mostly meaningless work for someone else's benefit. If we would rid ourselves from the ruling class we would be free of most of the economic pressure to work. Unemployment is only a problem created by capitalism. In a judicious world there would be no unemployment. Everyone would have a shorter working week and only what was needed would be produced.

What you seem to be saying here is that we would only work on what's needed. Now, if there's no economic pressure, who the hell is going to mop for a living? Someone needs to make my hamburgers, pick up my garbage, and clean out my sewers, and if you think I'm going to do it, if I have the option to write, or draw, or sing instead, I'd like to cheerfully extend my middle finger to you. Why do both, (for the benefit of society) when I can make a successful living in a capitalistic society with something I like to do, rather than either being forced (by the pseudo-anarchy's town committee) to mop up shit one day, and write the next, or be excluded from the community, who, by the meaning of anarchy, have no right to own or exclude me from anything?

Ever notice how democratic goverments ressemble communist ones? Think about it, to quote Maurice Duplessis the job of a goverment is to take money from the people and then share it. Not exactly share, but you hopefully get the point.

this depends of what kind of Anarchy you are talking about...

there is lots of diferent types of democracys...

for instance there is anarcho-syndicalism, wich is basicly a very libertarian form of socialism...
this actaully happened and flourished in spain before and during the spanish civil war.. (wich was only possible trough the election of the popular front that made huge reforms and gave birth to the most socialist elected state ever)
yet this form of anarchy is incomplete at maximum... since for the creation of a true free society you must first change all society and not only the means of production...

there is also the "normal" anarchy, wich was defended by Bakuine, Kropotkin and others...
this is basicly equal tot he marxist view yet while every marxist will defend the creation of a working peoples state and the implementation of a dictatorship of the proletariat anarchists defend the emidiat destruction of all states.. replacinghtemn by anarchy...
yet i cannot tak more about this due to my ignorance of my subject...

yet there is also another type of anarcy: Communism let me explain...

Communism isnt directly achieved through a revolution...
this means, you do not create communism overnight..
first you must creat a socialist state...
a dictatorship of the proletariat.. a marxist-leninist state to distribute the wealth and educate the people...
you need to creat the proletarian vanguard to rule the state and make sure everything is by the rules...
notice that the proletarian vanguard isnt a elite group...
it is the intelectual faction of the working class that will take care of thje political and economical aspects of the state...

yet even this stage is temporarly..
after all the counter-revolutionaryts are stoped...
after the dictatorship of the proletariat equaled the balance of the powers (since before you only have the dictatorship of the bourgeouse) then and only then you can absolve the state.. thus creating one and only one class...
then...
with the absolvation of the state, all classes and church you have a rather anarchist society...

yet this cannot be created without a socialist state... sometimes its also needed a authoritarian state in dificult cases (like the Cuban example... such Authoritanism is necessary in order to protect the people from not only the american terrorist acts but also the possible advent of a direct attack of the USA...)

Anarchism is self-government. Self-government means self-discipline. The alternative to self-discipline is enforced obedience imposed by rulers over their subjects. To avoid this, the members of every association freely make the rules of their association and agree to abide by the rules they themselves make. Those who refuse to live up to their responsibility to honor a voluntary agreement shall be deprived of its benefits.

Rules=Government. Everybody Ruling=Democracy. Depravation of Benefits due to Disobeyance of Rules=Law.

Now, as far as self-discipline goes, just look at the crimes and atrocities committed today. Even with the threat of death or life imprisonment, people show an extreme lack of self-discipline. Killers still kill, and there really isn't a difference between "Members freely making rules they agree to abide by, at the risk of losing benefits" and "Losing your rights and going to jail because you broke the law," as far as Anarchy is concerned. I happen to think not being imprisoned is a pretty sweet benefit for me following simple laws such as not killing or stealing. What you're proposing is just approaching a killer and saying "No. Don't do that. It isn't for the good of the community, and if it continues. we'll be forced to remove you from our society," instead of "Don't do it, or you'll go to jail with a bunch of other murderers and rapists, possibly get raped and killed yourself, and maybe even end up in the chair."

The one and only aim of anarchism is to propel society in an anarchist direction. Practically speaking, if every fed up being decided to merge to reform our current society the existing authority wouldn’t stand a chance.

Right... So how to you plan to unite the poor, disenfranchised masses? You know, the folks upset about the way things are run? The concept of everyone standing up and challenging authority denotes organization. Organization denotes government. Government is not equal to Anarchy. You become a bunch of hypocrites. Plenty of people are too stupid to lead. They need to follow. Plenty of people are upset, but are too lazy to follow or do anything about it (*looks at nitro*). Then you have the upper echelon on people- Leaders. The ones who sieze the oppurtunity, and thus gain power over the easily-led, and if he or she happens to enjoy the power granted by it, well, they could hold on to that power under the guise of a common cause they all share. People are social creatures, and as such, naturally form governments. Not everybody is a leader. Some need to be led. Even if everybody WAS a leader, then everybody would argue and bicker over what would need to be done, and thus, nothing would get done.

It is thought that a society without a State would have no defense from attack by foreign states well then it must be said that the current State uses us as to defend our rulers, who, if the truth be untangled, are our real enemies. A classic anarchist answer is to arm the people. An armed population would be difficult to control just as anarchist militias in Spain very nearly won the civil war despite shortages of weapons, treachery by the Communists and intervention by Germany and Italy. Where they made their mistake was in allowing themselves to be integrated into an army run by statists.

I don't care how much time you spend training in the backwoods swamps of Louisiana. A group of U.S. Green Berets will still kick down your door and smoke you faster than a sack of green in nitro's posession. The U.S. Military is developed on the basis of so many laws and rules that it becomes ingrained in the minds of soldiers. Soldiers become machines- tools. They become the property of the U.S. Government, and thus are much, much more effective than Billy-Joe Bob who trains in the Louisiana State Militia because he has a hard-on for guns. Just giving guns to the populace isn't nearly as effective as training them and forcing a chain of command on them (based on law). That's what the military is; a government within itself. Millions of troops given a rank below the thousands of more competent, experienced troops leading them. Ever see "The Patriot?" See what happens when you have discipline? You rout the rebels and they run off into the woods.

The American rulers would probably exterminate us all rather than willingly allow us our freedom.

This is a bit of a conspiracy theory, isn't it? Once again, unless you have any evidence to support this other than the fact that they benefit from being over us, this sentence is only slightly better than me saying "The American rulers would agree and give us all candy and beer if we wanted to become an Anarchist society."

Within anarchism there are many different but related ideas. There are complete systems of anarchist political theory going by names like federalism, mutualism, individualism, syndicalism, anarchist-communism, anarcha-feminism, situationism, and so on Traditionally, anarchists believe that the main problem with the world is that it is divided into masters and `wage slaves'. If we could get rid of the bosses and run industry ourselves, for the benefit of our own needs not theirs, it would clearly make a big improvement and would transform every area of life.

Does anybody ever consider the reason why these people go into business? Money. Power. Fame. Besides, not everybody is familiar with the concepts of business and the politics of the corporate world. Maybe, I don't want the local computer outlet run by the everyman. Maybe I want it run by a bunch of M.I.T. graduates. What are all these benefits you speak of by a corporation being run by the people? Sure, the oppression is down, but how successful would this corporation be if there's nothing keeping people on task? There's no boss, and no rules (in a true anarchistic society), and the only thing you have left is the faith you put in people's self-discipline, which, once again, is ridiculous.

Many will opposingly debate the thought of an anarchist society because they feel it is impractical yet they choose ignore that fact that man can change and be free at the moment he chooses to be. Anarchists are not so naive as to expect the fitting of the perfect society composed of perfect individuals who would miraculously shed their ingrown prejudices and outworn habits on the "day after the revolution." Anarchists are concerned with the direction of human development.

Ahh. So, what you're saying, then, is that human development will move ahead in the long run if you remove the laws currently stopping many people from rioting and looting? These "True Anarchists" are still painfully ignorant of the evil the human race is capable of if they believe that to create (eventually, after who knows how long) a society in which everybody can work together for the good of the community. It will never happen.

Ever.

Sorry.

Man may be able to be free at the moment he chooses to, but every person is so alarmingly different that it will never happen in one fell swoop. There will always be murderers, rapists, and thieves. Human emotion prevents anything less. They will always covet (and if not material things, then other things, like intelligence or beauty). They will always be greedy. There will always be a primal need beneath the surface to have more than another, and that will lead to violence, eventually. It seems to me to be astonishingly asinine to claim to be for human development, and then to say that the only way to accomplish it would be to remove the traces of civilization stopping us from crumbling into ashes (for however long) so that we can develop a civilization based upon not Anarchy itself, but "anarchist principles," which basically translates to "less laws," judging from the way it was put. You gave examples of rule by the people, as opposed to rule by ones' self, which is really more of a democracy than a "society with anarchistic principles." Have you even considered the difficulty of getting everyone to get together and agree on something? People are lazy. People don't care enough. People are evil. People want more than other people.

People have an enormous amount of faith in our present government but I consider it blind faith because they are ignoring facts that prove we mean nothing. We don’t have a voice if they choose to take it away from us just as we won’t have “freedom” if they want that too.

Blind faith, eh? Big words from someone standing on a soap box shouting out that the downfall of today's governments will (eventually) "bring about a perfect society composed of perfect individuals who would miraculously shed their ingrown prejudices and outworn habits" even if it's a little longer than the "day after the revolution," because it's what's best for "human development."We don't mean "nothing." We mean less than plenty of people say we mean, sure, but I'd like to see some of these facts you're talking about that show that we mean absolutely nothing to the government.

It disturbs me to think that we don’t have complete control over our lives.

Ahh, yes, but it disturbs me to think of what would happen if they didn't have some control over certain apects of my life, such as that wonderful blue line of men and women who risk their lives to protect me. The idea of complete and total freedom is almost as ridiculous as the idea of complete and total anarchy. The point of the government (initially, because I'll agree that the government does abuse power) is to grant you enough freedom to do what you want, without imposing upon the freedoms of others. It protects the weak. Anarchistic principles that exist to bring down the current government in order to bring about chaos (which is what will happen first, regardless of any happy touchy feely crap nitro will spew at you), and then maybe, eventually, after who knows how much destruction, a society in which everybody works for the benefit of the community so that they'll have more time to do what they want, is hopeful, at best, and that denotes blind faith on not only your part, but the thousands of idiots who are much less informed about the topic than you are who say "OMG I am in teh punk band and Eye Liek Anrchy bcuz teh guvernmet sux."

Anarchism does not imply absolute, irresponsible, anti-social individual freedom which violates the rights of others and rejects every form of organization and self-discipline. Absolute individual freedom can be attained only in isolation, if at all.

Anarchism-

1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity”

Now, for fun, lets use the Thesaurus, shall we?

Anarchy-agitation, anarchism, anarchy, brawl, bustle, chaos, clamor, commotion, complication, convultion, discombobulation, discord, disorganization, distemper, disturbance, dither, entanglement, fight, flap, fracas, fuss, hubbub, hullabaloo, imbroglio, insurrection, lawlessness, mayhem, misrule, mob rule, quarrel, rebellion, revolution, riot, rioting, ruckus, rumpus, static, strike, terrorism, tizzy, trouble, tumult, turbulence, turmoil, unrest, unruliness, uproar.

Anarchism does in fact, imply those things. Now, calling someone an anarchist doesn't, necessarily. Anarchists aren't necessarily the type to kill and steal, but the lawlessness, or, as you are implying, the dilution of laws, will bring that about. Too many people need fear to keep them compliant. Why do you think religion is such a hit, besides the arrogant notion of humanity that something exists after death?

This is why I like to see anarchy as the means to an end. It prevents the incredible long winded rants like these.

Stop it PJ!

His dreams, his pitiful dreams! Youre disillusioning him, PJ! Youre crushing his pathetic little dreams under the heel of your oppressive logic and good sense!

Anarchy: Like heroin, it only works in small doses.

Anarchism is a believable, practical guide to social organization.

No. It isn't. This is an opinion. We may be able to glean a few useful bits from it, but Anarchy, as a whole, is not a guide to social organization. You actually said this yourself, earlier, when you mentioned "anarchistic principles."

You have to have entirely too much faith in the people to advocate bringing down the government. People, at heart, are simple creatures, who want nothing more than to be able to eat, sleep, and fuck. If they see something that means that they're going to be able to eat, sleep or fuck more (especially if it's more than somebody else), then they'll be inclined to follow it. This is why they love power. Yes, anarchy would remove those in power, but they'll only be replaced, because there are more humans who are easily-led than are leaders, and there is more evil in leaders (not to a tremendous degree like Hitler, or anything, necessarily, but evil enough to manipulate the system to their own ends) than there are mostly benevolent ones. But in doing so, imagine all the innocents who would suffer through such a change.

You aren't arguing the point of Anarchy, really. You seem to have more of a Libertarian point of view, but are arguing, in part, for Communism.

Communism-
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Libertarian-
1.One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.<-(Government)

So, in conclusion, Anarchy is fucking ridiculous as a viable governmental form, in my opinion. People are just too mean. I happen to be quite pleased with the government's current set of laws, because I can go out and do just about anything I want to, repurcussion-free. Sure, I have to work a shitty job, but that can change. I could end up end up writing for a living, or making movies, or whatever, because it's what I want to do. I don't have to clean up shit for a living. Sure, every government has it's problems, but that's because people are imperfect.

So when the US imposes a bunch of crap on me that I don't support, and only when anarchy is the only viable explanation to oppose tyranny, will I support such an asinine cause. The only problem, is that it's not Anarchy, so much as a revolution, because even if humans resort to the guy with the biggest lead pipe making the rules, that's a government. Eventually they'll form a government to protect the weak, get revenge, and further themselves. Anarchy is short-lived, because humans need to be led. They need someone smarter than them telling them what to do.

Well, I've said a mouthful. I appreciate your research on this topic, so it could be better debated. I respect your opinion, because it was presented in an intelligent manner, unlike most people arguing for anarchy.

Word.

Preach it...um...Preacher.

Anarchy is just like Communism in so many ways, but basically in the fact that it's damned near impossible to get and impossible to keep. Especially in the pro-democracy climate we're in right now.

Anarchy will never work because there will ALWAYS be assholes. there will always be some dickhead that will hurt another person for either NO reason or an extremely pointless one, which is why the police are neccessary(not that i enjoy them over all).i agree on self-suffeciency, and do practice it to the best of my ability, but id rather not waste everyones time with examples. anyway, the fact of the matter is that anarchy IS impractical and it is just wishful thinking. Something i find funny is all the kids that buy anarchy patches and t-shirts from the mall, without realize that they are patronizing a major corporation while also paying sales tax that goes to the government. As for the comment on punk bands with anarchy symboles, they do that to piss people off.

At 5/15/03 08:25 PM, Shih wrote: This is why I like to see anarchy as the means to an end. It prevents the incredible long winded rants like these.

A means to what end? Nothing short of your fist would have prevented that rant in an anarchistic society, so what exactly did you mean by that?

If somebody wants to debate an issue, at length (2 full posts), then I need to quote them to make sure everybody follows along. I understand if reading gives you a headache. Sorry.

Turn on the ceiling fan. I think I smell something burning.

my advice to you nirvana is: practice what you preach.
i think you've got alot of good ideas and im glad your not one of those stupid kids that buy anarchy shirts from hot topic. the first step towards anarchys is making it work in your personal life.
also, you should get into this band called Crass, i dont really like them, but they share extremely similar political views you do on anarchy.

Too many people drift in thinking "OMG ANARCHY ROX" is going to be a solid debate. Just because it's Newgrounds doesn't mean the debates aren't intelligent. I actually find this place much better than other political sites.

Viva Newgrounds.

OMG JMHX ROXORZ

ive always wanted to know this JudgeMeHarshX...is that a picture of Garry Glitter in your banner? cause it always makes me laugh

Yes, anarchy would be great.
Untill someone fucking stabs you and loots your house.
Then it wouldn't be so cool anymore.

At 5/15/03 11:10 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote: Yes, anarchy would be great.
Untill someone fucking stabs you and loots your house.
Then it wouldn't be so cool anymore.

Well stated Flattus...I couldn't have said it more eloquently! btw...have you considered enlisting in the DAG? Check it out under DAG messages, under politics...lol

Well... I'm sure there are those who are wondering who this thread was meant for...

Nirvana alludes to a secret someone who wanted to see the thread come to life, someone who wanted to make a nice big rebuttal.

After PJ's responce, I just don't think I have it in me.

Sorry, Nirvana.

Nah... but he took all the good responces, so if I don't adress something, it's probably because he said it so well I could not hope to do better.

The State, the press and all the assorted authoritarian types, use every means at their disposal to present anarchy as an unthinkable state of killing and chaos

And what makes you think they'd be wrong to do so?
There will always be people who hear voices. People who seem normal but have an unquenchable bloodlust. There will always be those who think children make great sex toys. How would an anarchist state deal with them? Lock them up? You'd need jails and police. Kill 'em? What if you cannot catch them? Cross your fingers and hope they do not continue?

If you were to suggest that there would be no serial killers and rapists and such, then you're talking about something other than the human race. And I'm here to debate anarchy and it's impact upon the human race.

The television, press and films all support obedience. When anarchy is mentioned it is presented as senseless damage. They have to believe that authority and obedience are necessary in order to validate their own crimes.

Ok, not all bad. But to assume that the media and governments of the world debunk anarchy in order to pull the wool over our eyes is crap. They aren't hiding the enlightenment anarchy from us. They're being reasonable. I'm not defending any other actions except the debunking of anarchy.

People will admit that rules, taxes, officiousness and abuse of power are vexing to say the least. Yet with those same people the supposed need of authority is so firmly planted in their minds that anarchy (which means simply no government) is virtually unthinkable.

Really. I like the idea behind anarchy. I like the utopian ideals there.
But it's just completely unrealistic. It's too idealistic to ever be taken seriously. Is that exactly what you thought I'd say? Yes. It is.

But think about what I said before. That bit about the rapists and murderers.
Do you want to live in a world where I could just fuck you whenever I wanted? Even if you didn't want me to? What if I felt the urge to kill you afterwards? Sound like fun? How about if I then proceded to rape and murder your family?

People make friends, and that goes for sick people, too. So, then it's not just me, but it's 5 of my best raping/murdering buddies.

We celebrate a good night, and then toast to each other and drink cheap wine from your skulls.

Ever seen A ClockWork Orange?

Yeah... Utopia...

Anarchists have differing ideas on precisely how society should to be organized. They all agree that the State must be replaced by a society without classes and without force.The anarchist movement has a long history and it arose not in the heads of ivory tower philosophers, but from the practical struggle for survival of masses of ordinary, oppressed people.

And that's why it has so many holes. To quote PJ quoting K from MIB "A person is smart. People are stupid."

All this chaos is believed to originate from authority and the State. It is a fundamental anarchist principle that only people that live in an area have the right to decide what happens there. Powers that be can only get in the way and impose things. Without the ruling class needing to keep us oppressed there would be no State. Anarchists seek to replace the state, not with chaos, but with the natural, spontaneous forms of organization that emerged wherever mutual aid and common interests through coordination and self-government became necessary.

And what's to keep area A from warring with area B, then imposing area A's rules upon area B? By the above definition, the Native Americans had anarchy. And look where it got them. A small group of thugs came along, and their order and structured civilization brought the end to that. A continent of anarchy taken down in less than 100 years. Yeah, a lot of the natives died from disease brought by the Europeans, but those who lived didn't last long.

Leaders claim to be protecting us from each other, they’re actually more interested in protecting themselves and their property from us.

True. True. But that doesn't lend the anarchist movement any validity.
Why? Humans are greedy. Humans in an anarchist world would do the same.
Person A knows where to find huge feilds of pot. He doesn't tell anyone else, of course, because no one would get around to doing their chores if they were all high. Besides, he likes being able to smoke when he is on vacation from the commune.

Crimes of rage are unavoidable by police or anyone else however, in a less wearisome society such crimes would be uncommon. If we become members of our local community, own and share all the resources it would become meaningless to steal and an important motive for crime would be eradicated. Local people aware of each others' situation would be able to put into operation more appropriate resolutions. Prisons fail to improve or reform, how is locking people up with other anti-socials, so to speak, supposed to develop responsibility and reasonable behavior?

I'm not defending the current punishment system.
But what are you gonna do with me & my buddies, now that I've killed and raped the whole town? Cuddle me until I realize my harsh ways?

As for the school system, it is foolish to think that education simply consists of spending eleven years or so of our lives in schools especially isolated from the real world.

I agree. Standardized tests are no real measure of intelligence, or what one has learned. They only measure how good students are at cramming and memorization. You can have a child memorize the Emancipation Proclamation, but that doesn't mean he'll understand what it means, or the social impact of it.

But this has nothing to do with anarchy, does it? Education reform, yes... but we're talking about the problematic issues of an anarchist state.

Let's keep to the real subject: the unplausible aspects of anarchy.

People who refuse to work undergo social pressure and in drastic cases they could be expelled from the community. Imagine being compelled to face a meeting of the whole community you live in and publicly discuss a problem.

I killed everyone in town. No meeting! No expulsion! YAY!

People need to work and we all have a definite need for creative activity. Observe the amount of people who spend their time working on cars, in gardening, making clothes, creating music. They are usually thought of as hobbies rather than work, since we're brought up to think of work as a torment to be endured and it does not mean that we are naturally lazy, it means that we dislike being treated as machines, duty-bound to do mostly meaningless work for someone else's benefit. If we would rid ourselves from the ruling class we would be free of most of the economic pressure to work.

Oh. Ok. Well, in that case... I'll be painting. Have fun cleaning the newest blockage in the public restroom.

What? I have to contribute to the comunity? Well... FUCK THAT! I think I shall rape and kill you all. Have fun trying to catch me.

Unemployment is only a problem created by capitalism. In a judicious world there would be no unemployment. Everyone would have a shorter working week and only what was needed would be produced.

In a judicious world, I'd have no less than 4 hot women who desparately wanted my pimp juice.

Capitalism has its faults, but that doesn't mean there aren't jobless people in socialist or communist states. An anarchist state would have the opposite problem. A smaller, less motivated work force. Instead of your problem being the small percentage of the whole being jobless, it'd be a lack of people willing to do work. Well, I guess that really is the same problem, afterall.

And producing just what is needed? What about backup plans? Oh... that fits under just what's needed. Ok. So... Why is there no toilet paper this week?

Anarchism is self-government. Self-government means self-discipline. The alternative to self-discipline is enforced obedience imposed by rulers over their subjects. To avoid this, the members of every association freely make the rules of their association and agree to abide by the rules they themselves make. Those who refuse to live up to their responsibility to honor a voluntary agreement shall be deprived of its benefits.

Until they rape and kill those in the way of the benefits, of course.

It is thought that a society without a State would have no defense from attack by foreign states well then it must be said that the current State uses us as to defend our rulers, who, if the truth be untangled, are our real enemies. A classic anarchist answer is to arm the people. An armed population would be difficult to control just as anarchist militias in Spain very nearly won the civil war despite shortages of weapons, treachery by the Communists and intervention by Germany and Italy. Where they made their mistake was in allowing themselves to be integrated into an army run by statists. The American rulers would probably exterminate us all rather than willingly allow us our freedom.

I consider myself fairly free. I can't rape and murder at will. But that's really fine by me. I guess it all depends on what you define as freedom, too. But you cannot please everyone. Even in the anarchist state, the rapers would get tired of raping each other, and would move on to a more peaceful place with more possible rape victims. Until the murderers came and did their thing, of course. And then the necrophiliacs would have a ball!

I believe everything stated above gives a principal ideal of an “anarchist society”. [...more follows...]

The main problem with anarchy is that it assumes every human has pure and good intentions. It wants us to deny our very nature.

Face it, humans are pack animals. Heirarchy is built-in. If you've ever felt jealous, then you have first-hand knowledge of human greed, and the desire to see others underneath you.

In other words~
Anarchy is a good idea. But not for humans. We'd ruin it's purity.

Therefore, it is an overly idealistic and naive doctrine. A bad idea.

At 5/15/03 07:09 PM, PreacherJ wrote: Real quick, for everybody's benefit, the definition of the word "government."

1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
5. A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
6. Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.

"The television, press and films all support obedience. When anarchy is mentioned it is presented as senseless damage. They have to believe that authority and obedience are necessary in order to validate their own crimes."

Could you explain this further? I wasn't sure if you meant that the media commits these crimes, or the government behind them?

When I say crimes I mean trying to regulate us and make us work continuously toward benefiting the ruling class.

"Anarchists have differing ideas on precisely how society should to be organized. They all agree that the State must be replaced by a society without classes and without force."

Doesn't this seem to be a bit of a paradox following the sentence in which you mentioned "anarchy (which means simply no government)."?

It is form of organization; the rules will be set by the people that have to follow them. People who choose not to follow the rules set buy the people of the community might in worst cases be asked to leave. Imagine being compelled to face a meeting of the whole community you live in and publicly discuss a problem. But people of a community will have to abide by the rules they choose to willingly apply

If there was an organization of society, isn't that a form of governmental involvement? Who would organize it? What would cause me to follow it?

Anarchists seek to replace the state, not with chaos, but with the natural, spontaneous forms of organization that emerged wherever mutual aid and common interests through coordination and self-government became necessary.

Could you further elaborate on this non-governmental form of organization? How are decisions made? Who determines what a common interest is? Are you referring to everybody becoming self-sufficient? How are they coordinated without someone telling someone else to do?

People need to become their own leaders and stop waiting for orders. If we all contributed to make this world a better place utilizing our ideas and then discussing it as a whole I feel more people would feel they mattered and work harder cause they know they would be benefiting from it.

Leaders claim to be protecting us from each other, they’re actually more interested in protecting themselves and their property from us.

This is entirely a matter of opinion, really, even if you quoted it from a thousand prominent Anarchists.

Crimes of rage are unavoidable by police or anyone else however, in a less wearisome society such crimes would be uncommon.

Yeah, I'd think so, but once again, do you have any evidence to back this up? I think you'll be hard pressed to find a government that reverted to anarchy and committed less of these atrocities, and, the entire concept of "a less wearisome society" is relative, to a point.

Even so, the thought that such happy shiny bonding together in an anarchistic society dedicated to uniting against common goals creating "a less wearisome society" is unfounded (it hasn't happened before in our modern civilization yet), and, since we have no knowledge of this fictitious society, we haven't a clue as to how people will react to different situations in such a society. Maybe, since there's less "emotional strain" on the populace, somebody'll get bored, and let me tell you, there's nothing worse than a bored serial killer...

Okay I have two things to say about this: 1. man is free as soon as he chooses to be and 2. An event has to happen once for it to be considered a fact or apart of history. Before it happened there was no proof it could ever happen.

If we become members of our local community, own and share all the resources it would become meaningless to steal and an important motive for crime would be eradicated.

This is preposterous. If that were true, then multimillion dollar atheletes wouldn't bitch and complain and strike when thier contracts are $28 million instead of $30 million. There's a natural instinct of greed in all animals (a dog will get fat if you keep feeding it, for example), and humans are the worst of the lot. There isn't a species on Earth that goes to the lengths the human race does to "grab all you can and fuck the other guy."

Man has to decide what is more important in life that is the only way it can work. That is why the anarchist movement tries to inform and educate society. People don’t want to realize that freedom has to be absolute and they seem to forget that our existing government was developed for the people yet currently it isn’t.

Just because there's enough for everybody doesn't mean I don't still want more than you. Jealousy/Greed makes me unhappy. Unhappiness = dissent. Dissent + Time = Uprising. Uprising + Pseudo-Anarchy = Riots/Revolutions and a new form of government.

I agree that reforming our society to and anarchist type of society may seem impossible considering the natural instincts of man. But tell me this, how is it natural if our current government is the cause for it?

At 5/15/03 07:29 PM, PreacherJ wrote: Local people aware of each others' situation would be able to put into operation more appropriate resolutions.

Not to be a dick, but why would I help you? What makes me want to? If I don't need your help, and I don't possess your moral structure (is nitro watching?), what's to stop me (if there's truly no government) from just sitting on my ass all day, not working to improve the community, and then stealing from you when you aren't looking, thus benefitting from your labor, and exploiting the poor governmental system?

Helping you fellow man will benefit you in the end. People who refuse to work undergo social pressure and in drastic cases they could be expelled from the community. Imagine being compelled to face a meeting of the whole community you live in and publicly discuss a problem. If we would rid ourselves from the ruling class we would be free of most of the economic pressure to work. Unemployment is only a problem created by capitalism. In a judicious world there would be no unemployment. Everyone would have a shorter working week and only what was needed would be produced.

Prisons fail to improve or reform, how is locking people up with other anti-socials, so to speak, supposed to develop responsibility and reasonable behavior?

Prisons do dissuade people from braking the law. Why don't I steal more often? Because I don't want to go to jail. Plus, the fact that Johnny Lawbreaker is behind bars stops him (at least temporarily) from doing all those mean things to me. There's a shitload of facts on both sides of the effect prisons have on crime here. As for turning them into more responsible, productive members of socierty, aside from the deterrent prisons have, several prisons do offer job training and rehabilitation programs.

Well each community will have to decide how they want to deal with their criminals. I just think each crime shouldn’t be generalized just as the punishment that follows. I am well aware of the mass amount of crimes that are committed each day but if each community was responsible to deal with their crimes solutions would actually solve the problems. I mean who care more about a community then the people who live in it?
::

I agree with this, partially. I just fail to see how you could do this, exactly. You should further explain the "system" these "Anarchists" wish to impose.

We should all contribute to educating our youth that is why it is important to become leaders so that we have influencing characteristics that can rub off on our them. Each individual needs certain academic attention and once again I’ll say it, each community will have to decide how they want to handle that. Would you like my personal opinion?

People who refuse to work undergo social pressure and in drastic cases they could be expelled from the community. Imagine being compelled to face a meeting of the whole community you live in and publicly discuss a problem. People need to work and we all have a definite need for creative activity.

If there were consequences for my inactiveness, then there'd be laws. If there were laws. there'd be a government to enforce them. If I had to go and feel pressured to work by a town meeting, then that isn't anarchy. It's more of a true democracy, isn't it? Especially if there is consequences (Such as being expelled from a community). There'd be social pressure, sure, but since there is no law, there is nothing that the community could do to MAKE me work. If they run me out of town, then that's the government at work, enforcing laws. "Work or get out of town."

Well the community would enforce it. The development of “laws” would help make society an equally deciding factor over important issues. I mean it is as simple as this: you give back to your community what you can. If you don’t work you suffer and you bring down the quality of life because some one else is depending on your productivity just as you are of another.

::

What you seem to be saying here is that we would only work on what's needed. Now, if there's no economic pressure, who the hell is going to mop for a living? Someone needs to make my hamburgers, pick up my garbage, and clean out my sewers, and if you think I'm going to do it, if I have the option to write, or draw, or sing instead, I'd like to cheerfully extend my middle finger to you. Why do both, (for the benefit of society) when I can make a successful living in a capitalistic society with something I like to do, rather than either being forced (by the pseudo-anarchy's town committee) to mop up shit one day, and write the next, or be excluded from the community, who, by the meaning of anarchy, have no right to own or exclude me from anything?

It is imagined each community would devise its own rota system. Anarchy is freedom and I can’t understand why you’d want to work and answer to corporate pigs that work you to the bone to make them money. I don’t understand why it would be so hard to help the fellow man that will help you right back. I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want to live in a place where you have as much control over you’re your environment as the next person whom you share it with.

At 5/16/03 06:13 AM, TheShrike wrote:

::

The State, the press and all the assorted authoritarian types, use every means at their disposal to present anarchy as an unthinkable state of killing and chaos

And what makes you think they'd be wrong to do so?
There will always be people who hear voices. People who seem normal but have an unquenchable bloodlust. There will always be those who think children make great sex toys. How would an anarchist state deal with them? Lock them up? You'd need jails and police. Kill 'em? What if you cannot catch them? Cross your fingers and hope they do not continue?

Anarchists reject the ideas of law and a specialized justice system but they are not blind to the fact that anti-social action may not totally disappear in a free society. Some sort of "court" system would still be necessary to deal with the remaining crimes and to give a ruling on disputes between citizens. One possibility is that the parties involved agree to hand their case to a third party. Then the "court" in question would be the arrangements made by those parties. The second possibility is if the parties cannot not agree or if the victim was dead the issue could be raised at a public assembly and a "court" would be appointed to look into the issue. These "courts" would be independent from the community. Their independence would be strengthened by popular election instead of executive appointment of judges, by protecting the jury system of selection of random citizens by lot, and by informing jurors of their right to judge the law itself, according to their conscience, as well as the facts of a case.

::

The television, press and films all support obedience. When anarchy is mentioned it is presented as senseless damage. They have to believe that authority and obedience are necessary in order to validate their own crimes.

Ok, not all bad. But to assume that the media and governments of the world debunk anarchy in order to pull the wool over our eyes is crap. They aren't hiding the enlightenment anarchy from us. They're being reasonable. I'm not defending any other actions except the debunking of anarchy.

They try to make people think Anarchy is chaos and that anarcy is just meaningless violence. The current government wants people to think they help us and they make sure we’re protected. They lie about situations that prove anarchists ideals to be true and blinded people just brush it off and continue on the way.

People will admit that rules, taxes, officiousness and abuse of power are vexing to say the least. Yet with those same people the supposed need of authority is so firmly planted in their minds that anarchy (which means simply no government) is virtually unthinkable.

Really. I like the idea behind anarchy. I like the utopian ideals there.
But it's just completely unrealistic. It's too idealistic to ever be taken seriously. Is that exactly what you thought I'd say? Yes. It is.

We spoke about this before and the more people who have a fairly clear idea of what a free society would look like the easier it will be to create that society and ensure that no important matters are left to the "leaders" to decide for us. An example is the Spanish Revolution. For many years before 1936, the C.N.T. and F.A.I. put out publications discussing what an anarchist society would look like. In fact, anarchists had been organising and educating in Spain for almost seventy years before the revolution. When it finally occurred, the millions of people who participated already shared a similar vision and started to build a society based on it, thus learning firsthand where their books were wrong and which areas of life they did not adequately cover. This discussion of what an anarchist society might look like is not a drawing up of blueprints, or an attempt to force the future into the shapes created in past revolts. It is purely and simply an attempt to start people discussing what a free society would be like.

But think about what I said before. That bit about the rapists and murderers.
Do you want to live in a world where I could just fuck you whenever I wanted? Even if you didn't want me to? What if I felt the urge to kill you afterwards? Sound like fun? How about if I then proceded to rape and murder your family?

People make friends, and that goes for sick people, too. So, then it's not just me, but it's 5 of my best raping/murdering buddies.

Can the current government protect you from that now or can they just make sure those sick people pay when it’s all over? Well in this society they would face consequesnces too.

Ever seen A ClockWork Orange?

yes I have….I can’t ever listen to ”singing in the rain”

For anarchists, a social revolution is a process and not an event One thing that anarchists do agree on is that it's essential for both the state and capitalism to be undermined as quickly as possible. It is true that, in the course of social revolution, anarchists may not be able to stop a new state from being created or the old one from surviving. It all depends on the balance of support for anarchist ideas in the population and how willing people are to introduce them. There is no doubt, though, that for a social revolt to be fully anarchist, the state and capitalism must be destroyed and new forms of oppression and exploitation must not put in their place. While the conditions necessary of a free society would be created in a broad way by a social revolution, it would be utopian to imagine everything will be perfect immediately. An anarchist social revolution or mass movement will need to defend itself against attempts by statists and capitalists to defeat it. Every popular movement, revolt, or revolution has had to face a backlash from the supporters of the status quo.

At 5/16/03 06:14 AM, TheShrike wrote:

I consider myself fairly free. I can't rape and murder at will. But that's really fine by me. I guess it all depends on what you define as freedom, too. But you cannot please everyone. Even in the anarchist state, the rapers would get tired of raping each other, and would move on to a more peaceful place with more possible rape victims. Until the murderers came and did their thing, of course. And then the necrophiliacs would have a ball!

I believe everything stated above gives a principal ideal of an “anarchist society”. [...more follows...]

The main problem with anarchy is that it assumes every human has pure and good intentions. It wants us to deny our very nature.

I think our current system causes many of us to act that way so it really isn't natural

Face it, humans are pack animals. Heirarchy is built-in. If you've ever felt jealous, then you have first-hand knowledge of human greed, and the desire to see others underneath you.

I feel hate sometimes but I have self discipline. I won't go on a stabbing rage because I can regulate myself. That is what people need to do or they will suffer in the long run.: In other words~

Anarchy is a good idea. But not for humans. We'd ruin it's purity.

Therefore, it is an overly idealistic and naive doctrine. A bad idea.

I am happy you shared. What can I say? You are strong minded and I respect that but what if a time came where anarchy was posed as a new form of gov't....would you accept it?

At 5/16/03 12:05 PM, Nirvana13666 wrote: Anarchists reject the ideas of law and a specialized justice system but they are not blind to the fact that anti-social action may not totally disappear in a free society. Some sort of "court" system would still be necessary to deal with the remaining crimes and to give a ruling on disputes between citizens. One possibility is that the parties involved agree to hand their case to a third party. Then the "court" in question would be the arrangements made by those parties. The second possibility is if the parties cannot not agree or if the victim was dead the issue could be raised at a public assembly and a "court" would be appointed to look into the issue. These "courts" would be independent from the community. Their independence would be strengthened by popular election instead of executive appointment of judges, by protecting the jury system of selection of random citizens by lot, and by informing jurors of their right to judge the law itself, according to their conscience, as well as the facts of a case.

Ok. Well, I think me and my buddies will rape and kill the judge who disagrees with me. What abut this problem?

They try to make people think Anarchy is chaos and that anarcy is just meaningless violence. The current government wants people to think they help us and they make sure we’re protected. They lie about situations that prove anarchists ideals to be true and blinded people just brush it off and continue on the way.

That is not a proper rebutal. I'm sorry. It isn't.
Now, about your answer... Give me one good example. Just one. We'll discuss it.

We spoke about this before and the more people who have a fairly clear idea of what a free society would look like the easier it will be to create that society and ensure that no important matters are left to the "leaders" to decide for us. An example is the Spanish Revolution. For many years before 1936, the C.N.T. and F.A.I. put out publications discussing what an anarchist society would look like. In fact, anarchists had been organising and educating in Spain for almost seventy years before the revolution. When it finally occurred, the millions of people who participated already shared a similar vision and started to build a society based on it, thus learning firsthand where their books were wrong and which areas of life they did not adequately cover. This discussion of what an anarchist society might look like is not a drawing up of blueprints, or an attempt to force the future into the shapes created in past revolts. It is purely and simply an attempt to start people discussing what a free society would be like.

So you say the one real example of an anarchistic society was it's own downfall.
They learned that it was a little to idealistic, and had to cope.
Right before they were wiped out by more structured states.

Can the current government protect you from that now or can they just make sure those sick people pay when it’s all over? Well in this society they would face consequesnces too.

No. They can't give me 100 percent coverage. They cannot assure that the bad guys will be caught. But the fact remains that they do a lot better than anything anarchy can promise.

Ever seen A ClockWork Orange?

yes I have….I can’t ever listen to ”singing in the rain”

That is unfortunate. Or is it?

For anarchists, a social revolution is a process and not an event One thing that anarchists do agree on is that it's essential for both the state and capitalism to be undermined as quickly as possible. It is true that, in the course of social revolution, anarchists may not be able to stop a new state from being created or the old one from surviving. It all depends on the balance of support for anarchist ideas in the population and how willing people are to introduce them. There is no doubt, though, that for a social revolt to be fully anarchist, the state and capitalism must be destroyed and new forms of oppression and exploitation must not put in their place. While the conditions necessary of a free society would be created in a broad way by a social revolution, it would be utopian to imagine everything will be perfect immediately. An anarchist social revolution or mass movement will need to defend itself against attempts by statists and capitalists to defeat it. Every popular movement, revolt, or revolution has had to face a backlash from the supporters of the status quo.

And after this perfect anarchistic society is formed, there will still be the haves and the have-nots. There will still be men of power. And men with power usually want only one thing.

More power.

It all comes back to human nature. We're greedy little motherfuckers. If you can wipe out all of the problems within humanity itsself, anarchy would surely rise and become widespread, and a utopia would follow.

But how are you going to rid us of all of our imperfections?
Hitler had an idea on the 'how' of that.