Anarchist, I wanna hear your alternatives.

Well Mr. Misfits, it seems we shall have a fun little round and as it appears we may have something to learn from this.

I am going to state that the basic principles of Anarchy:: No organized control (as I am to understand it) will defeat itself. The strong will survive, the strong will surly take advantage of the weak. This 'taking advantage of' is a form of control, and as there is no way to have an unorganized control there we come across the contradiction in this definition.

 

Ok you keep trying to define it and when youre successful we'll start. BTW I am glad you got rid of your sig picture, I mean like I said it was a bit camp - glad you realised that !
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240338

 

Found this on another forum, it was kinda interesting, seemed a lot more sane than most people here:

 

I see some MAJOR sanity here actually. Thanks SelfControl and Share The Warmth. I am so glad to see some folks who can think outside the box and not get caught up in the usual shit slinging which inevitably comes at some point. It takes people with lots of insight and open minds to pull off large undertakings of any kind. Too many people have an all or nothing mentality. Too many people act as if they think they can "change the world" all by themselves. Too many people just want to argue over things they have no actual control over, while assuming they have the only answer. The world, even while it appears on the surface to be controlled by a handfull of sinister people, is ultimately uncontrollable. I think the best an Anarchist can hope to achieve would be to create limited conditions in small areas where their ideals could be practiced without too much interferance. This is already happening here and there, the biggest problem being the interferance. Anarchists should be focusing their energies on change which gives them the freedom to practice what they preach. Again, I will state, and this may be the MOST important thing, Anarchy does NOT = violence. Violence is not anarchy. Violence is mainstream. The most revolutionary thing a person or a culture could do would be to shunn violence as a solution for anything. And without "typical big government" we would NEED to adopt this model or our efforts would be quickly destined to failure.

 

What most anarchists don't seem to realise is that most people are extremely apolitical - they vote for whoever makes the most convincing promises and who has ideas like their own, but that is as far as most will go. Do you really think people would just sit down with anarchists after a (probably) violent revolution that has overthrown the system which gave them relative stability, peace, and comfort and say: "Right - well, lets get to planning a new life!" ? I don't think so. Besides - you're entirely disregarding human nature. The opportunists and those nations that still have some sort of standing army will see the giant opportunity and just invade your little anarchist country. And there is the end of that.
My point is: ANARCHY IS NOT FEASIBLE. Noone likes disorder and instability, much less the people who control the big guns.

 

Well quite. Although I think there's actually a lot more political instinct to people than we might think. I'd imagine a fair quantity of people react to anarchism with suspicion because, knowing that the society we live in was at some point buil up from anarchy, it seems a little fishy when someone tells you we should go back to it.

The difficulty with anarchism is surely going to be selling it to someone who likes archism (is this a word?). It's easy enough to get people who are really angry about the way society has gone to join the cause, but once you start demanding commitment from them, you might find there's less of those than you'd think.

As you've said, people are comfortable. Even the oppressed (especially the oppressed) will fight to defend the system that keeps them fed and housed, unless they can be sure the alternative will be better.

The "how can you know anarchism wouldn't work? It's never not worked because no-one's ever tried it!!!!!" argument will butter no parsnips with most people because, more than oppression, people dislike change and upheaval, and they already have a society which more or less keeps that out of their lives. So yeah, they'll probably want to stick to it, for the same reason someone sticks to the same bank account rather than shuffle their money around all the time to get the best deals; sure, you're maybe missing out on something that could be better, but the whole reason you have a bank account is that you don't want to have to fiddle around with your money on a daily basis.

 

I think you 3 are the only people with objectivity sanity and rationality.

Most seem to want to alter their particular corner of the globe - forgeting about the rest of the world and how we all interact 'globalisation' .

You can not do away with religeon as to many people use THAT as law of its own [sharia law for e.g]. The rest of that chaps ''ramblings'' are just crazy.

I have no idea where ronnie is coming from so it is difficult to understand him. He just seems very sure of his ''facts'' - how true they are is questionable imho.

Thus my biggest issue is ''anarchy'' is full of just that.

 

No I got rid of it for something far better. Thats just a tattoo I'm going to get sometime soon. And I do appologize for having pride in where I live and grew up.

And if I do not know what Anarchy is then perhaps you shall educate me. It is obvious that you hold higher knowledge than I do and therefore are smarter than I. I wish to learn from you.

 

Breakxeggs - why have you that image in your sig' ?

 

Doesn't matter how many variations on this

I see, it never ceases to turn my stomach. It generally used to support the fallacy that because intelligence doesn't necessarily make you a better person, idiocy MUST do.

 

So then wouldn't the mercenaries be making more money then the equalness everyone else has? They would then be richer and have guns so they would become war lords. See places where the Government suddenly collaspes. People don't just rule themselves. Their is always someone moving up in the power struggle. If the government paid the mercenaries then they would be police with out the legal system. The funny thing is once you get to working around with the details it all sounds a lot like what we have now except without the benifits. Lets move forward in liberty by shooting people who wish to prey, come on.

 

QFT

 

Well that would make sense. People act as though our system has just been magicked into existence by some sinister force, but it wasn't. Archism evolved the way it did from anarchy because things like law and order are natural concerns. Archism is a bid to make the universe "fair". It doesn't always work, and gets hijacked by assholes, but the same is true, indeed much truer, of anarchism; while we don't have an example per se, pretty much every behavioural study points to this.

I think anarchism, or some adapted form of it, might actually have some legs if its exponents learned a little about archism first. Machiavelli's The Prince is a really good place to start.

 

First off doing mercenery work would be legal in a country with more liberty. Second off, paper and metal monies would be abolished (bye-bye "In God we trust"). That way all earnings will be entered into a computer system for equilism to work. Some kind of bank debit card thing we'd have in place for the ppl. PPl would pay exact amounts this way too.

 

What happens when someone hacks that computer or the computer crashes?

 

whats actually laughable about you people is that 99.99% of what you say is airheaded shit - you really actually say nothing and certainly nothing interesting. It would surprise me if one of you had an ounce of wit or half a gram of intelligence but on both scores the wrap is empty - pity that - as your see through attempt to keep all other political opinions but a right of centre agenda is laughable - you people really are the most petty minded fascile idiots I have ever conversed with in a forum
really - you just post any shit as long as its your shit thats getting hits !!

WAAAAAAHAHAHAHA !!!!!! ever get the feeling you been had !!!???

 

Sorry, at this stage, what is the point of even changing the system? As someone already said, you're pretty much just tearing things down for the sake of it rather than because they were actually bad or unnecessary, because you're just replacing them with equally/more corruptible versions of the same.

e.g. what's the point of abolishing cash money? It's a good invention! With a computer system, one's ability to buy anything could just be erased by whoever has control of the computer. It's a system that's even more open to abuse than the current one. I'm sure you'll have some improvised idea to excuse this, but you know, we have a ruling party very similar to that, who've been criticised for making up policy on the fly. Where's your ideology?!

 

Well coming from someone who thinks they can change the world by throwing a rock at a cop, I don't think we are too concerned what the fuck you think.

 

Come on then Ronnie hit us with your wit and inteligence -
Nobody is stiffling your opinions you simply have said fuck all so far - what are the ''alternatives''.
Shake out the water from your protested ear and speak up.

All I hear from you is ''fuck capitalism'' yawn ''fuck America'' yawn - when the picture is a lot more complicated than that - but you refuse to make it that and just keep it yawningly simplistic.. fuck every other country on the globe fuck every other arguement on the globe.

 

Ronnie's output seems mostly to just be "you're all idiots".


Ever heard the saying about the wise old owl who lived in an oak?