WTF is with anarchy?

So you think that men should be free to do these things but not women? Or were you accidentally using sexist language? If so you might want to consider changing 'man' to 'person' otherwise many people will ignore your ideas just because of the way you talk about them, rather than judging your ideas based on the merits of your arguments.

 

Where have you been? Get a life or something?

 

who me? not a chance. But really I live a very busy life brimming with obligations
(school, multiple jobs, family, art, etc). I've been posting here since 2005, but typically I make a bunch of posts in a month and then I don't come back for another six months or so.

 

Yeah,had'nt seen you around for a while.

 

Anarchy is a cope out for a society not to think and make collective progress. A government is a reflection of it's people and sadly in America half the country is retarded

 

it feels like anarchy is the only way to correct the sickness

 

Anarchy is a theoretical acceptance of the moral majority's science proven opinions of what the world is coming to. You can't change it. We maintain the economic welfare of the people by the oil industry and the sustenance of the ordinary means for mass transportation. Anarchism merely concludes that the hoax is instead in the people being able to change. Any system change leads to just the absurd truth of anarchy; for the power of peace and tolerance lies in what the governments must logically DO ANYWAY.:afro:

 

It makes a lot more sense to me than the idea of ruling;

Realizing that people are imperfect, these imperfect people have organized a system which they think is perfect, but simply they do not realize how imperfect it is... In this system, a mass of imperfect humans choose a smaller group of imperfect humans to lead them. Humans are full of bad ideas, why would a smaller bunch of them have better ideas?

 

Something I wonder about is how people can say something won't work when they state they really don't understand the thing. Anarchy could work just fine, I think, if everyone understood how to make it work. It is really nothing more than people agreeing to do things together, something that happens every day everywhere. I guess the problem would come from people who are unable to control themselves, and follow through with things they agreed to do, or are too lazy to participate, and those who infringe on other peoples rights, but there are ways of dealing with rights issues and trouble makers in an anarchy too.

 

Anarchy hypothetically would look like how this country function under the Articles of Confederation, only worse, because I doubt those who support anarchy support even state governments.

Needless to say I am not a fan of this concept, I think it's a cop out political philosophy, and is just appealing to say in times of societal discontent.

Anarchy won't ever work, given that statistics on how often sociopaths and psychopaths pop up in society, it won't ever work until human nature, and perhaps the human physiology that drives such selfish perspectives is permanently changed.

 

agreed. maybe it's the people i hang out with, but i witness anarchy work out for good all the time. even little things, little acts of anarchy. trading and bartering instead of using money, working under the table, educating yourself, growing a garden, smoking pot, protesting, activism.

 

i am now a christian and you should go to a christian church

 

What are you going on about now?

 

Does it have to be a Christian church, what about Jewish, Buddhist, atheist , all of them ?

 

You're living in a John Lennon fantasy world of Imagination. You can "think of it" any way you want, but it doesn't make it so. If you live in isolation in the wilderness someplace or on a desert island you might get by doing just what you want, assuming what you want is a daily struggle for subsistence. If you live among people, you face the reality that the stronger or more aggressive types will try to take advantage of the weak. If you're one of the stronger, more aggressive types, that may not be so bad, but you have to sleep and risk having your head bashed in with a rock. As Hobbes said, under such conditions, life would be "nasty, brutish, and short". I agree with you that the quest for wealth, status, power, and sensual indulgence is the root of human suffering, but I think lots of spiritual development is needed to eliminate those instincts. The Buddha called it nirvana, it takes a long, dedicated effort to get there, and not everyone is willing to give it a try. Most co-operative communal experiments are eventually torn apart by petty squabbling or continue because people are willing to go along and do what they're told by the dominant individuals or groups. But Imagine was a nice song!

 

It would only work ok if everyone or at least the far far majority is coöperating. The fact that this is rarely the case is the reason why societies came up with all kinds of different forms of government and why at this point democracy is generally considered the most satisfying form.
That examples of anarchy can work just fine on a smaller scale does not mean we can get rid of government all together. That seems indeed wishful thinking.

 

logistics are a bitch.

 

The question is "WTF is Anarchy?". At some point, we probably should define the term. According to Webster , anarchy is: (a) : absence of government (b) : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority (c) : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy Each of these meanings is objectionable, but can serve as a point of departure in understanding the concept. First, real world anarchists recognize that anarchy, as a functioning system, can't mean complete absence of government. defined as " the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and state". What they reject is hierarchy--a system in which people are separated by rank. Followers of the late anarchist guru Murray Bookchin were willing to settle for a confederation of"libertarian municipalities" governed by participatory democracy. The Rainbow Family of the Living Light favors limited governance by a council open to all, in which decisions are theoretically made by group consensus; In practice, authority is exercised by focalizers (volunteers) and/or "elders", who have the personal leadership ability to get others to go along. Such arragenments aren't necessarily lawless or disorderly, since informal norms enforced by social pressure are generally effective.. Anarchists who resist even these minimal restrictions have yet to demonstrate that they are capable of sustained collective action. Whether or not anarchy can work as a system of collective action depends on what people are trying to do. If it is something simple, like meeting in the woods for a couple of weeks one or more times a year, as is the case with the Rainbow gatherings, it can work reasonably well if expectations aren't too high. If it's running a complex industrial society, it does seem utopian.

Anarchists have trouble taking sustained collective action, and have been plagued by factionalism and petty squabbling. In the United States, four broad categories of anarchism can be distinguised: (1) the anarcho-left (aka, social ecologists), which extends the earlier class struggle to include ecological causes and embraces libertarian municipalism, confederalism, and participatory democracy; (2) "post-left (aka, individualist or "lifestyle") anarchism, which rejects all formal authority; (3) "anarcho-primitivism", which seeks a return to the ways of hunter-gatherers; and (4) anarcho-capitalism, or right-wing anarchism, which views all government restrictions on private enterprise as illegitimate. The social ecologists are followers of the late Murray Bookchin, whose roots were with the Old Left and who railed against the lack of seriousness he saw in the post-left anarchists, whom he regarded as absorbed with personal autonomy and incapable of political action. This category includes present or former faculty of the Institute of Social Ecology, such as co-founder Dan Chodorof and Janet Biehl, Ward Churchill, Fred Wordworth, and Chas Bufe. Strongly opposed to these are the post-left anarchists like Bob Black, Hakim Bey, Jason McQuinn, Lawrence Jarach, Wolfi Landstreicher, and the rest of the circle of Berkeley, California, and Columbia, Missouri-based intellectuals following in the anarcho-individualist tradition of Max Stirner. The third orientation, anarcho-primitivism, a Seattle-based faction following John Zerzan, came to media attention for its role in the Seattle riots protesting the WTO in 1999. By identifying agriculture and civilization as the sources of human ills and extolling primitive lifestyles, the anarcho-primitivists follow a path which not everyone finds appealing. Earth First! might be put in this category, without implying a link to Zerzan. The fourth form of anarchism is the right-wing variant, anarcho-capitalism, as developed by such theorists as Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, the Tannenhills, Roderick Long, Edward Stringham, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. One step beyond libertarianism, these champions of radical free enterprise and private property favor privatization of virtually everything, including courts, firefighting, law enforcement prisons and national defense. The judicial system would run like Judge Judy on TV, with the parties contracting with an arbitrator to settle disputes. People would pass the hat to hire a military, private police, and private firefighters. Pie in the sky. I hope it doesn't catch on. It rests on the notion that private individuals will check each other's power and won't abuse each other. Tell that to y. Boone Pickens! That's my take on anarchy. I'd welcome your thoughts.

 

well i don't understand why humans hate things they don't understand.
they really don't live in a universe that is very impressed by they're doing so.

there is no inhierent morality in either hierarchy nor the abscense of it.
no more the one then the other.

nor bennifit nor harm. there are bennifits and harms, yes, but not inhierent to either the presence nor abscense there of.
(deferently specific to each, but not inherently more nor less for the one then the other)

now there is harm in tearing everything up, targets of opportinity, to object to the existence of hierarchy,
but i don't know why people have such a hard time to see, that this is a completely seperate thing,
from simply passively not supporting hierarchy in any form.

what is objectionable is people being brainwashed into equating all three of those definicians,
which really require their own seperate words,
because they really are entirely independent of each other as concepts.

ANY time, even so much as one person, dominates another, you do NOT have, an "absence" of "government".
a hierarchy of one, is still a hierarchy.

what can replace the need for hierarchy in ANY form to exist, is universally mutual consideration.
just because this cannot be expected of 100% of any population, doesn't put beyond the capacity of most people.

 

is anarchy staying somewhere that does not have room service???