WTF is with anarchy?

Anarchy is fucking stupid, in the sense that the "anarchists" talk about.

Government should exist to keep people safe, no more no less.

Having no government SHOULD be an anarchists worst nightmare, because power vaccums create power.... These people who profess to know so much about people and how to liberate them should see that to keep people free, a baseline of power must be retained, or else EVERYONE loses their freedom.

I could write a small book on it. But everyone but the wannabe anarchists already would know it all, and it's been said many times.

 

The baseline of power should be the people themselves, not a power elite to preside over them. That is bound to limit the populace's freedom, as a power elite works in it's own best interests, and no one else's.

 

The idea/concept of Anarchism was around looong before punk. Look it up.

 

Exactly. Almost all native American societies were Anarchistic societies. Society ruled itself. There was no formal sanctioned government or officials, Generally the eldest, considered the wisest, were seen as the chiefs. However, that chief was only a spokesman for the people. The people would not tolerate a bad chief for long.

The Amish also work in an anarchist society. Their society runs itself, they do not follow sed laws or rules that are enforced by an overlooking force. The follow their societal standards, which mostly happen to coincide with the laws of the local governments within which they reside.

 

Whoa, let's not make things up.

Natives did NOT do what they pleased. Even the very smallest bands or tight-knit family clans had hierarchy and leadership. If they had not, they would not have survived.

They might have had the option to do what they pleased, within the confines of their orders, OR leaving the clan. But they had weight to pull, and pulled it because they needed to, AND because, if they wouldn't, someone with the authority to do so would tell them to get their asses in gear and do their share of the work, or GTFO.

 

The problem with anarchism is that its simply an extreme form of liberalism. Its about being politically correct yet not wanting a centralised government. in the end anarchists cant actually tell you what the point of anarchy is about as there is a case which states that anarchism is not a political idea but a set of political ideas that nobody can agree upon and which the majority of people, therefore, do not want. The problem with anarchists is they always think the next riot is going to bring about revolution and that more and more people will join them and one day they will get the society they want. Unfortunately they havent recognised that anarchism is simply a class war and that they havent got the will of the people behind them.A revolution is only a revolution if you can outwit, outsmart, and outnumber the establishment protecting those who the establishment works for. there is no anarchist revolution, there wont be one and no matter what anarchists say, their policies are totally incoherent to the majority of people. Of course they will say the majority of people are stupid then or need re-educating, or need to make some grand realisation of some sort, but rarely do anarchists make any realisation other than that they spent their lives forever talking to themselves and convincing nobody else

 

Pretty close to this.

Anarchism is an extreme rebound by people who feel choked by senseless rules, so they call for the abolishment of all rules.

There are very few times in the history of the planet that true anarchy has worked among Homo sapiens. A few, but in the broad sense, it's complete foolishness. And many anarchists do understand this, on some level.

In the end it's wishful thinking. Same as deciding you'll never do anything your parents tell you to again because they sent you to bed, or lied that you could go to disneyworld. But in the end, the kid knows they have to listen to their parents, and if they didn't, it would ruin them. The things that allow these anarchists to exist are the same things they rail against. Having LESS of these things would be nice, but having NONE of them is stupid.

 

Anarchy will and can only work at a very small level, it cannot work for large societies that we have today. Anarchy is great, like communism, and both have been repeatedly distorted to the point that they create a "monster" image in people's heads. Anarchy will only work among anarchists at a basic level.
I wish that one day we will come to a point where either an edited communism or anarchy will be stable.

 

I agree entirely. You see the only reason that anarchists can exist in Europe and the USA and other countries that practice a liberalist capitalism is because the anarchists arent lined up a wall and shot. As ever capitalists do something far worse to them, they ignore them, then they laugh at them, then they call them criminals for starting riots etc and then for a decade will choose to ignore them again.
The public hates criminals, and so long as anarchists dont have a party people can vote for they are simply a disorganised rabble that cause trouble for hard working civilised people in the media. that is how anarchists are kept down. Anarchists should get a job and start working to earn money then perhaps they would see why their politics fails every time

 

Of course natives did not do what they pleased. Their society did not allow it. However, there was not a formal government. Native American societies, barring those of the Incas, Mayans, and Aztecs (as well as a very few other groups) were not operated by a state. There wasn't anyone with "authority" as we know it. There were chiefs and clan chiefs, but they were generally put forward as the wisest and smartest by the people. Chiefs were still subject to the demands of the local society. They were not above it and did not dictate that others follow their say. The society and community took care of those that strayed from the society's standards.

 

"real" anarchists in my mind, so to speak, are not going to try to show off their anarchy and tell off everyone. more like they will do their own thing.
the rest of the self proclaimed anarchists seem to like the label and want people to think theyre rebels.

 

when you can figure out how to get 6 or 7 billion people to live like that today, please let us know

 

It's one of those ideals that will almost never be truly realized. A lot like a true Democracy. Havn't had one of those in milennia, have we?

Doesn't mean that I am going ot stop trying, but I know the chances are remote.

 

I believe it's just that. A personal statement of independence. What a beautiful theology , yet it's fatal flaw is that it doesn't account for true human nature.

 

Anarchy is no government.

True conservative government is small and accountable.

As with most who would support anarchy, you're not an anarchist, you just think you are and don't know what it is....

 

Here ya go... http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/goldman/anarchism.html

Emma Goldman explains it all. Even today she's ahead of her time.

 

Yes, Anarchy is no government. However, a committee made up of the locals is not a government. Is PTA a government organization? Are the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts government associations? No. They are simply groups of people with common interests. In order for an Anarchist society to function with any degree of fluency, An anarchist society must be highly organized and structured. The difference between Government and non government associations is as follows: One can remove oneself from a non government entity. In an anarchist society, simply by moving to another area or community you can willingly remove yourself. One cannot remove oneself from the overseeing government, willingly or unwillingly. You may be able to remove yourself from one governing area, but only into another area of Governance.

 

Some people for you guys to check out if you are interested in anarchism...
=)

Peter Schiff
Stefan Molyneaux (this guy has an excellent podcast)
A guy I know named Brett has an excellent podcast schoolsucks.podomatic.com/


also let's kick it old school and read up on some
Lysander Spooner
Murray Rothbard

 

OK lets see -

Peter Schiff – right wing libertarian (financial adviser to Ron Paul)
Stefan Molyneaux – right wing libertarian blogger
Lysander Spooner – great influence on right wing libertarian thinking.
Murray Rothbard – supporter of anarcho-capitalism

To quote from ‘Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism by Peter Marshall
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0006862454/qid=1141817809/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/026-7013781-2335648"]http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...013781-2335648

“anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. In fact, few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice. Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists.” [my bold]

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=2266805&postcount=10

 

stalking me on hipforums much??